Is Brent really bringing back a class per grade for live instruction today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

I doubt you actually know that. You think that, but you don't know it. You may know the loudest voices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, but I think it has less to do with them being "a model" and more to do with being a school with a large population of UMC, highly educated parents, and an extremely well-funded PTO. What Brent is doing is simply not possible at other schools, and it actually just highlights the inequities in the system. Brent is also not a destination school for children from less well-funded or well-functioning IBs, since it is virtually impossible to get a spot at Brent unless you are IB. So another example of how the lottery does not actually distribute resources equally among the city's kids, but allows wealthy families to buy into "good" schools that exclude poor children.

Side note: a Brent parent once told me that "any school" could be like Brent if the parents just put in the effort. So if you are wondering if UMC white people still think their sh*t don't stink, the answer is very much: YES.

Well extremely similar schools are not doing this mere blocks away (Maury) so I think there's something different going on at Brent.

Also I'm not sure why you think Brent is doing something no other school could replicate?

Potentially, but Maury is not as similar to Brent as you think. In the younger grades, yes, but the school is more socio-economically diverse overall and much more so in the older grades. I would also venture that the teaching staff is more diverse as well. Brent is a true bubble.

I seriously doubt that's why Maury isn't taking the same approach, even for just the youngest grades (which are a huge bubble). The older grades are less diverse than you'd think. Maury is dominated by parents who don't want to do anything that could be perceived as "mean" towards teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

Here is the problem with all this arguing. The side that wants to stay closed can at least acknowledge that people want the schools open. The people who want the school open can not possibly imagine a scenario where people don’t agree with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

Here is the problem with all this arguing. The side that wants to stay closed can at least acknowledge that people want the schools open. The people who want the school open can not possibly imagine a scenario where people don’t agree with them.

I don't agree with this at all as this has not been the experience in discussions at my kid's charter school.

The side that wants to stay closed thinks virtual learning will suffer if schools give both options (in-person or virtual), so they advocate loudly for virtual for all. It's incredibly selfish.

The side that wants to open just wants people who feel comfortable going back to have that choice, acknowledges that some people will choose to remain virtual, and acknowledges people should have a choice.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone answered the actual question about Brent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

Here is the problem with all this arguing. The side that wants to stay closed can at least acknowledge that people want the schools open. The people who want the school open can not possibly imagine a scenario where people don’t agree with them.

Stop being purposefully dense. Everyone but the poster you're quoting acknowledges both sides. The previous poster said NO (I.e. zero) parents wanted to return. I'm 1000% sure this wasn't true. None of the schools I'm affiliated with or have friends at actually surveyed the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

Here is the problem with all this arguing. The side that wants to stay closed can at least acknowledge that people want the schools open. The people who want the school open can not possibly imagine a scenario where people don’t agree with them.

Stop being purposefully dense. Everyone but the poster you're quoting acknowledges both sides. The previous poster said NO (I.e. zero) parents wanted to return. I'm 1000% sure this wasn't true. None of the schools I'm affiliated with or have friends at actually surveyed the parents.

I’m at Murch and they did a survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in general this "every school for itself" plan is going to mean inperson schooling will hinge on the reputation and relationship between the principal and the teachers. This will be where the rubber meets the road.

Good luck to the schools with principals none of the teachers can stand.

Exactly. The schools with bad morale and a principal that everyone hates are going to have a hard time here. This is going to expose cracks that are normally hidden from families.

This is true for term 2. However, the reopen committee just advises the Principal, so the Principals can go ahead and reopen for term 3 whether the teachers like it or not. The schools where the Principal actually expects staff to meet the mission will fare better overall. Many teachers don't want to go back to work and won't as long as they think the Principal is fine with it.

The Principal at our school was clear that she sided with WTU and let everyone know that she was afraid of DCPS during the events leading up to the strike. She ignores issues and pretends everything is rosy. She actually sent a message to the entire school stating that there's been very little loss of learning and no social emotional loss during DL based on a ridiculous survey she conducted with the upper elementary students. Sure, her job is easier for her to just go along with her staff and pretend that everyone wants to stay home. But she couldn't even open up a CARES classroom because no one volunteered after she set expectations that we shouldn't reopen. The teachers and staff know she isn't holding them accountable for much of anything. I'll be surprised if we reopen in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I applaud any school principal that is following the science and acknowledging, unlike the WTU and the city, that kids and teachers can safely return in some capacity. That's leadership.

Well said. A lot of Principals are afraid to take on WTU so they're acting like parents don't want to go back even though that's not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it also depends on what parents within the school want. I know that most of the UMC parents at our elementary do NOT want in person schooling.

And I only singled UMC out because they seem to be the group that typically most want in person. I spoke with a person on our schools' LSAT who told me that they had done surveys and no parents wanted in-person at our school. The only reason we have one CARES class because Bowser required it.

No parent? I seriously doubt that. The LSAT is tight with the union, so I'm sure they are only telling you that to normalize the "It will never be safe!!" position.

Here is the problem with all this arguing. The side that wants to stay closed can at least acknowledge that people want the schools open. The people who want the school open can not possibly imagine a scenario where people don’t agree with them.

lol. seldom have I seen such a self-serving analysis!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in general this "every school for itself" plan is going to mean inperson schooling will hinge on the reputation and relationship between the principal and the teachers. This will be where the rubber meets the road.

Good luck to the schools with principals none of the teachers can stand.

Exactly. The schools with bad morale and a principal that everyone hates are going to have a hard time here. This is going to expose cracks that are normally hidden from families.

This is true for term 2. However, the reopen committee just advises the Principal, so the Principals can go ahead and reopen for term 3 whether the teachers like it or not. The schools where the Principal actually expects staff to meet the mission will fare better overall. Many teachers don't want to go back to work and won't as long as they think the Principal is fine with it.

The Principal at our school was clear that she sided with WTU and let everyone know that she was afraid of DCPS during the events leading up to the strike. She ignores issues and pretends everything is rosy. She actually sent a message to the entire school stating that there's been very little loss of learning and no social emotional loss during DL based on a ridiculous survey she conducted with the upper elementary students. Sure, her job is easier for her to just go along with her staff and pretend that everyone wants to stay home. But she couldn't even open up a CARES classroom because no one volunteered after she set expectations that we shouldn't reopen. The teachers and staff know she isn't holding them accountable for much of anything. I'll be surprised if we reopen in any meaningful way.

Is this Janney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brent can do it, why can't all the NW schools do it?

Brent has Norah Lycknell. She used to be at Janney and was light years better than the current principal.
Quite simply, Norah gets stuff done. Her staff trusts her. She moves mountains within DCPS.
The current principal is borderline worthless. There is no reason Janney couldn't also be going back in some form.
Instead they're not even "able to" staff Cares classrooms.
The number one thing is a leader must inspire confidence/trust in her employees.
Norah has always been able to do this.

Lycknell and her team have been astounding. She hosts regular town halls to help with transparency and communication. I don’t understand how she gets so much done with her small staff. They all are stepping in filling roles they don’t usually fill and putting together plans. They have been 10 steps ahead with COVID planning from day 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brent can do it, why can't all the NW schools do it?

Brent has Norah Lycknell. She used to be at Janney and was light years better than the current principal.
Quite simply, Norah gets stuff done. Her staff trusts her. She moves mountains within DCPS.
The current principal is borderline worthless. There is no reason Janney couldn't also be going back in some form.
Instead they're not even "able to" staff Cares classrooms.
The number one thing is a leader must inspire confidence/trust in her employees.
Norah has always been able to do this.

Lycknell and her team have been astounding. She hosts regular town halls to help with transparency and communication. I don’t understand how she gets so much done with her small staff. They all are stepping in filling roles they don’t usually fill and putting together plans. They have been 10 steps ahead with COVID planning from day 1.

She has always been incredible. In her 5 (?) years at Janney she got the city to build TWO additions from start to completion. That didn't happen on autopilot. She has an ability to get others to do things and works tirelessly herself. Like her or hate her, that woman gets SH$%T done like few others do and is a remarkable school leader.

[Anonymous]

Well, she is good at majority-white elementary schools where most students come in with huge advantages.

Brookland Middle - not so much.

Which is ok (except for the kids there). It's good to know one's limitations.