Separate thread: please post if you've received an in-person slot notification

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why the teachers had to be involved. DCPS has made a horrible situation a million times worse for the majority of kids.

switching teachers will suck, but once that switch is made, I don;t see it as a million times worse for the student. Much more work for the DL teacher and many more small group meetings for her, but that was her choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the teachers had to be involved. DCPS has made a horrible situation a million times worse for the majority of kids.

switching teachers will suck, but once that switch is made, I don;t see it as a million times worse for the student. Much more work for the DL teacher and many more small group meetings for her, but that was her choice

You think many more small groups are actually going to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the teachers had to be involved. DCPS has made a horrible situation a million times worse for the majority of kids.

switching teachers will suck, but once that switch is made, I don;t see it as a million times worse for the student. Much more work for the DL teacher and many more small group meetings for her, but that was her choice

You think many more small groups are actually going to happen?

It has to. Whole class instruction with 24 is ineffective and my own teacher already got rid of it and moved to all small group math instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

I 100% agree, but teachers refused hybrid because of the added contagion risk for them and their students. There were lots of posts about that here too - how one teacher with two sets of 10 kids was too dangerous. So the rule is one teacher with no more than 11 kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

I agree that all the kids in self-contained classrooms should be offered a spot. But the problem is that WTU has obstructed teachers going back, and these teachers have very specific skills. DCPS can't just throw in any teacher not specifically trained for self-contained.

This is 100% WTU's fault.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think some people understand how the spots for the inperson class worked. There are 8 spots (2 spots for school discretion). Iep hours and services are not taken into account. If your school has more than 11 students (2-5) that are homeless, at risk, ell or sped then those names go into a lottery and 8 are pulled. That’s it. That’s how it works. There is no well this kid is more needy. That not how the lottery works. Self contained has their own lottery for spots.

Also dcps sent staff a booklet saying OT, PT, SLP and sped services are being provided virtually. So having that in room spot isn’t as heavenly as it appears.

It sucks. But this is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid who receives services is every category totally several hours a week did not get a spot but multiple classmates did who get speech therapy twice a month. WHAT THE HELL

How do you know this already? Did you talk to the parents? Do you know their situation?

Yes, I have friends and we know our IEP situations. Why do you find this unlikely? It’s a random lottery with no hierarchy For higher needs kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

I 100% agree, but teachers refused hybrid because of the added contagion risk for them and their students. There were lots of posts about that here too - how one teacher with two sets of 10 kids was too dangerous. So the rule is one teacher with no more than 11 kids

That’s not the rationale dcps is using for no hybrid. They said the changed from hybrid because it offered children less instruction than this plan. It had nothing to do with the wtu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

I agree that all the kids in self-contained classrooms should be offered a spot. But the problem is that WTU has obstructed teachers going back, and these teachers have very specific skills. DCPS can't just throw in any teacher not specifically trained for self-contained.

This is 100% WTU's fault.

Specially trained for self contained??? You must be kidding. If you have a sped license or an emergency license DCPS will gladly give you a self contained classroom with no support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel full of despair and devastation.

This business of not rank-ordering IEPs based on the level of need is beyond insane. Moreover, it undermines the whole point of bringing in the neediest kids.

So a kid who qualifies for an aide doesn’t go back but one with a 15-minute a month OT consult does? Insanity.

But there won’t be any one-to-one aides in the classrooms anyway; so if they did put your student in the classroom, s/he wouldn’t have the aide.

Just saying, DCPS has lost any bragging rights that their plan is intended to serve the neediest kids.

Absolutely agree! I mean, they basically aren’t serving kids with IEPs even if they get a classroom spot because they will not have service providers doing face to face (only online and how does that work with the other kids in the class), no aides etc. This was never intended to be about the best interests of the kids with highest needs (because those would be better known to the schools than to some programmer doing algorithms at central office), but some kind of performative political theater for the Mayor. (I just voted and looked at the City Council choices carefully - anyone who wants to undo 100% Mayoral control of the schools earned a second look from me!

[Anonymous]

Right, the kids with high needs IEPs who got a spot are not going back into a classroom with pullouts for speech and o/t and special education - they are going into a classroom with 10 (or 9 if they are lower grade) other kids with various needs that will all be met virtually. So it seems like the grade level teacher will be there to log the kids into computers in order to have their service hours virtually with SLP etc. Same with self-contained. And the rationale for half of the kids there is that those classes are mandated to have a teacher and TWO aides. So if the teacher or one of the aides isn’t coming back then you can’t have (up to 8) kids. Many of the kids in self-contained are not able to socially distance or potentially wear masks because of their sensory issues and that means those classes will be higher risk for everyone in the room. Again, if the people who made these plans had ever had an iota of actual experience in a classroom, they may have realized that there are other factors than the number of bodies you can fit into a classroom. But they haven’t, and they chose not to involve the people who know the kids best, parents and teachers, and so here we are...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the idea with bringing back 50% of self-contained children is the lack of staffing. I'd imagine only around half of SpEd teachers assigned to self-contained agreed to return in person. My best bet is that the lottery will select 50%, then the school brings in an additional two (if they have the staff allowing them to be in compliance with the teacher to student ratio).
As for services, OT and PT will be in person but speech won't. This is what they said in a reply to a question during the information session on Oct 6.

But if it is a staffing or space problem, then that’s why we should be doing hybrid!

Why not serve all the self-contained kids part-time rather than some FT and others none?!

(And same for the rest of the kids!)

I 100% agree, but teachers refused hybrid because of the added contagion risk for them and their students. There were lots of posts about that here too - how one teacher with two sets of 10 kids was too dangerous. So the rule is one teacher with no more than 11 kids

That’s not the rationale dcps is using for no hybrid. They said the changed from hybrid because it offered children less instruction than this plan. It had nothing to do with the wtu

This was the rational given to me by my principal. I think the recent email from DCPS about hybrid providing less instruction time is because they are getting a lot of questions about it and are trying to justify the decision especially in light of NYC. BTW, if you read the NYC version of dcum (youbemom) there are students learning virtually in care classrooms because they too struggled to get enough teachers to go back. It doesn't sound like those are elementary school students but it's hard to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the teachers had to be involved. DCPS has made a horrible situation a million times worse for the majority of kids.

switching teachers will suck, but once that switch is made, I don;t see it as a million times worse for the student. Much more work for the DL teacher and many more small group meetings for her, but that was her choice

You think many more small groups are actually going to happen?

It has to. Whole class instruction with 24 is ineffective and my own teacher already got rid of it and moved to all small group math instruction.

yep. DL teachers will be pushed to do small groups, which is an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, the kids with high needs IEPs who got a spot are not going back into a classroom with pullouts for speech and o/t and special education - they are going into a classroom with 10 (or 9 if they are lower grade) other kids with various needs that will all be met virtually. So it seems like the grade level teacher will be there to log the kids into computers in order to have their service hours virtually with SLP etc. Same with self-contained. And the rationale for half of the kids there is that those classes are mandated to have a teacher and TWO aides. So if the teacher or one of the aides isn’t coming back then you can’t have (up to 8) kids. Many of the kids in self-contained are not able to socially distance or potentially wear masks because of their sensory issues and that means those classes will be higher risk for everyone in the room. Again, if the people who made these plans had ever had an iota of actual experience in a classroom, they may have realized that there are other factors than the number of bodies you can fit into a classroom. But they haven’t, and they chose not to involve the people who know the kids best, parents and teachers, and so here we are...

My IEP kid gets about an hour a day of pull-out instruction. I'm fine with his remaining virtual if his math and ELA instruction is in person. It is an great plan for him. I understand it is not great for everyone and I'd prefer a plan that gave more students access to in-person instruction. But it is literally winning the lottery for us.