Maryland BOE Meeting 9/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are they just decreeing this NOW, instead of before the deadline to submit plans to the state? Why change the rules after everyone has already started?

This is ridiculous.

MoCo never submitted a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they just decreeing this NOW, instead of before the deadline to submit plans to the state? Why change the rules after everyone has already started?

This is ridiculous.

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Grades 6-8 and 9-12 they want 5 hours of synchronous learning, 5 days per week and 1 hour of asynchronous learning per day, 5 days per week. Total of 6 hours per day.

Grades 3-5: 4 hrs/2 hrs
Grades K-2: 3 hrs/3 hrs
Pre-K (Full Day): 3 hrs/3 hrs
Pre-K (Half Day): 1.5 hrs/1.5 hrs

As of now, my 6th grader has 4 periods, 1-hour-long each, only 4 days a week. With normal, in-person, school he would have had 8 periods daily, 5 days a week.
Wow. I just realized how much instruction has been cut back.

Before you do that, ask yourself how much of the in-school class time is used for "instruction" as you conceive of it.

I’m not sure what school your kids go to, but my middle schooler certainly received more than 4 hours of instruction per day precovid. When they weren’t getting instruction they were in small groups with the teacher walking around to ensure discussion was occurring.

Compare that to today where they broke into groups of three and no one in my DC’s grouped talked (One student’s mike didn’t work) so he texted with friends in other groups to work on the answers.

Gee, that sounds exactly like what my kid did in middle school last year when there was still school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

Says the governor, the county executive, and the superintendent. Just last week, the county executive posted a diatribe on twitter complaining that releasing metrics for reopening was unfair (never mind that he asked for them repeatedly) because MCPS had put all of its resources into planning for distance learning. MCPS has hundreds of 12-month employees. It's unclear why some couldn't be working on in-person reopening and some couldn't be working on distance learning. They have enough people that a third team could have been working on a hybrid option. We're going to have school in-person again some day, right? And on that day -- whether it's five months from now or five years from now -- COVID-19 will still be a threat. As the WHO has said repeatedly, it's well past time to start figuring out how to live with the virus.

And for all those here who say distance learning is fine, great! I guess we won't hear you complain about overcrowded schools because kids can learn by sitting in front of a computer just as well. We could save so much money on school buildings, not to mention teachers to teach in them. We could just retain the best teachers to go on video and hire lowly paid teaching assistants to take care of grading. Sounds like a winner!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are they just decreeing this NOW, instead of before the deadline to submit plans to the state? Why change the rules after everyone has already started?

This is ridiculous.

What they're saying is already state law. All the state BOE is saying is that they intend to stick with state law. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise, except to incompetent school districts that can't read the Maryland code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

Says the governor, the county executive, and the superintendent. Just last week, the county executive posted a diatribe on twitter complaining that releasing metrics for reopening was unfair (never mind that he asked for them repeatedly) because MCPS had put all of its resources into planning for distance learning. MCPS has hundreds of 12-month employees. It's unclear why some couldn't be working on in-person reopening and some couldn't be working on distance learning. They have enough people that a third team could have been working on a hybrid option. We're going to have school in-person again some day, right? And on that day -- whether it's five months from now or five years from now -- COVID-19 will still be a threat. As the WHO has said repeatedly, it's well past time to start figuring out how to live with the virus.

And for all those here who say distance learning is fine, great! I guess we won't hear you complain about overcrowded schools because kids can learn by sitting in front of a computer just as well. We could save so much money on school buildings, not to mention teachers to teach in them. We could just retain the best teachers to go on video and hire lowly paid teaching assistants to take care of grading. Sounds like a winner!

The governor, the county executive, and the superintendent have all said that MCPS never submitted the required plan? Really? Where and when did they say this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

Says the governor, the county executive, and the superintendent. Just last week, the county executive posted a diatribe on twitter complaining that releasing metrics for reopening was unfair (never mind that he asked for them repeatedly) because MCPS had put all of its resources into planning for distance learning. MCPS has hundreds of 12-month employees. It's unclear why some couldn't be working on in-person reopening and some couldn't be working on distance learning. They have enough people that a third team could have been working on a hybrid option. We're going to have school in-person again some day, right? And on that day -- whether it's five months from now or five years from now -- COVID-19 will still be a threat. As the WHO has said repeatedly, it's well past time to start figuring out how to live with the virus.

And for all those here who say distance learning is fine, great! I guess we won't hear you complain about overcrowded schools because kids can learn by sitting in front of a computer just as well. We could save so much money on school buildings, not to mention teachers to teach in them. We could just retain the best teachers to go on video and hire lowly paid teaching assistants to take care of grading. Sounds like a winner!

THIS! Expose them for the idiots they are. This is beyond comprehension.

[Anonymous]

This impacts all counties including those who submitted plans that were reviewed and accepted by the state. No reason this guidance could not have been given in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

Says the governor, the county executive, and the superintendent. Just last week, the county executive posted a diatribe on twitter complaining that releasing metrics for reopening was unfair (never mind that he asked for them repeatedly) because MCPS had put all of its resources into planning for distance learning. MCPS has hundreds of 12-month employees. It's unclear why some couldn't be working on in-person reopening and some couldn't be working on distance learning. They have enough people that a third team could have been working on a hybrid option. We're going to have school in-person again some day, right? And on that day -- whether it's five months from now or five years from now -- COVID-19 will still be a threat. As the WHO has said repeatedly, it's well past time to start figuring out how to live with the virus.

And for all those here who say distance learning is fine, great! I guess we won't hear you complain about overcrowded schools because kids can learn by sitting in front of a computer just as well. We could save so much money on school buildings, not to mention teachers to teach in them. We could just retain the best teachers to go on video and hire lowly paid teaching assistants to take care of grading. Sounds like a winner!

The governor, the county executive, and the superintendent have all said that MCPS never submitted the required plan? Really? Where and when did they say this?

Marc Elrich said: "Montgomery County, like other school districts in the state, spent months planning for opening the school year virtually." Google Marc Elrich twitter if you want to see the original. The governor said MoCo didn't submit an in-person plan at his press conference last week. The superintendent never even submitted an in-person plan to the school board, so MCPS could not have possibly submitted one to the state. Go back to the July school board meetings.

But I'm open to seeing a plan for in-person learning in any form. Post a link to the MCPS in-person plan that's been approved by the school board, and I'll happily read it and recant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This impacts all counties including those who submitted plans that were reviewed and accepted by the state. No reason this guidance could not have been given in June.

Except the science, right? I agree that we should base things on science. The best, clearest thinking on schools didn't emerge until the past few weeks. The CDC guidance issued in the spring wasn't specific about the conditions under which communities could reopen schools. It was vague.

But I doubt that MCPS would have liked reopening metrics then, either, because they knew as soon as the governor released metrics, those metrics would result in pressure to reopen for in-person learning. Complaining about a lack of metrics was a useful foil for Elrich and Gayles for a couple of weeks until Hogan predictably released metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MoCo never submitted a plan.

Says who?

Says the governor, the county executive, and the superintendent. Just last week, the county executive posted a diatribe on twitter complaining that releasing metrics for reopening was unfair (never mind that he asked for them repeatedly) because MCPS had put all of its resources into planning for distance learning. MCPS has hundreds of 12-month employees. It's unclear why some couldn't be working on in-person reopening and some couldn't be working on distance learning. They have enough people that a third team could have been working on a hybrid option. We're going to have school in-person again some day, right? And on that day -- whether it's five months from now or five years from now -- COVID-19 will still be a threat. As the WHO has said repeatedly, it's well past time to start figuring out how to live with the virus.

And for all those here who say distance learning is fine, great! I guess we won't hear you complain about overcrowded schools because kids can learn by sitting in front of a computer just as well. We could save so much money on school buildings, not to mention teachers to teach in them. We could just retain the best teachers to go on video and hire lowly paid teaching assistants to take care of grading. Sounds like a winner!

The governor, the county executive, and the superintendent have all said that MCPS never submitted the required plan? Really? Where and when did they say this?

Marc Elrich said: "Montgomery County, like other school districts in the state, spent months planning for opening the school year virtually." Google Marc Elrich twitter if you want to see the original. The governor said MoCo didn't submit an in-person plan at his press conference last week. The superintendent never even submitted an in-person plan to the school board, so MCPS could not have possibly submitted one to the state. Go back to the July school board meetings.

But I'm open to seeing a plan for in-person learning in any form. Post a link to the MCPS in-person plan that's been approved by the school board, and I'll happily read it and recant.

Ah. So, in fact, MCPS did submit a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ah. So, in fact, MCPS did submit a plan.

Where is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah. So, in fact, MCPS did submit a plan.

Where is it?

DP. The third version of the plan (dated mid-August) was the one submitted to the state. The second half was about the hybrid option they would roll out once it is considered safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah. So, in fact, MCPS did submit a plan.

Where is it?

DP. The third version of the plan (dated mid-August) was the one submitted to the state. The second half was about the hybrid option they would roll out once it is considered safe.

I asked about a plan that contemplated any version of in-person learning, which is now considered safe by metrics published by the WHO, Harvard, New Jersey, and New York. Where's that plan? If you wait for the action-forcing event to start planning for said event, you're not planning anymore. You're reacting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah. So, in fact, MCPS did submit a plan.

Where is it?

DP. The third version of the plan (dated mid-August) was the one submitted to the state. The second half was about the hybrid option they would roll out once it is considered safe.

I asked about a plan that contemplated any version of in-person learning, which is now considered safe by metrics published by the WHO, Harvard, New Jersey, and New York. Where's that plan? If you wait for the action-forcing event to start planning for said event, you're not planning anymore. You're reacting.

It is the second half of the plan submitted to the state, which is this one (third version): https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/reopening/virtual-learning/guide-edited-081420b.pdf

Starts on page 32