Why is Janney not fully open 4 days a week vs Murch and Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney teachers are a dime a dozen. There is nothing special (we have been there and at other DC Schools).

Let them leave. As I reflect on my children's education, the best teachers were from a Title 1 school.

The Janney teachers are fine, sweet, mostly inexperienced. They get high impact ratings because there are few students who have behavior challenges / are not prepared for school.

I am hopeful that DC shakes up the leadership team like they did for Lafayette.

Why didn’t you stay at your Title 1?

We thought there was something behind the hype

I honestly fell for this too. The funny thing is though my last school children were scoring lower I realized it wasn't due to the quality of the teachers, they were moving kids who had a severe disadvantage in life and parents who were not able to help them. If you look at the growth scores that's a bit more telling.
And then of course we are able to get more resources here, it was honestly a very interesting experience. I do really think if we had teachers from title 1's we'd do crazy amazing because they are much more used to dealing with children who have lower scores and higher needs.
*And let me add my caveat here, of course not all title 1 teachers are better, let's not get crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney teachers are a dime a dozen. There is nothing special (we have been there and at other DC Schools).

Let them leave. As I reflect on my children's education, the best teachers were from a Title 1 school.

The Janney teachers are fine, sweet, mostly inexperienced. They get high impact ratings because there are few students who have behavior challenges / are not prepared for school.

I am hopeful that DC shakes up the leadership team like they did for Lafayette.

Why didn’t you stay at your Title 1?

We thought there was something behind the hype

I honestly fell for this too. The funny thing is though my last school children were scoring lower I realized it wasn't due to the quality of the teachers, they were moving kids who had a severe disadvantage in life and parents who were not able to help them. If you look at the growth scores that's a bit more telling.
And then of course we are able to get more resources here, it was honestly a very interesting experience. I do really think if we had teachers from title 1's we'd do crazy amazing because they are much more used to dealing with children who have lower scores and higher needs.
*And let me add my caveat here, of course not all title 1 teachers are better, let's not get crazy.

I'm a Title 1 parent and not a DCPS teacher so I'm not sure, but I think there is something to this -- I've had my kids' teachers tell me that they moved to the school bc they specifically wanted to teach at a Title 1 school. Do they get something extra for teaching at a Title 1, in which case the spots are more competitive and the teachers actually may be better?

All their teachers have been phenomenal.

[Anonymous]

All of the teachers in third grade are doing in person this term. But because of space limitations, it's only two full days a week for each class. The children will be on their regular virtual schedule on the other days so no loss of virtual instruction the other days. I am satisfied with this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys already chased out an amazing principal. When will enough be enough?

+1

[Anonymous]

The principal who my fellow Janney parents chased away with their constant demands did actually already answer the exact question in this thread when the Q4 plans were announced: It had to do with what the Q3 model was, in addition to the health and safety protocols. And the local school advisory team was involved in the decisions for both Q3 and Q4.

I realize it may be more satisfying emotionally to just assert that the principal is somehow not doing her job or that the teachers are being obstinate for no reason, but in reality, there's an explanation for this decision. Disliking the results of the decision doesn't also require you to pretend there was no reason for it.

[Anonymous]

To me it looks like a combination of space issues (not all classrooms can fit all students with 3 ft) and some teachers who are not reporting. My concern is that there are these announcements of fully opening in the fall with no information as to how we get from here to fully open 4 months from now. What would case levels need to be to drop the 3 ft rule? Are teachers who are not reporting in person now going to be required to report in person? The empty messaging in concerning because companies and agencies are planning for a return with these. Fully open is very far from where we are now and I have realized after 13 months that things don’t change as quickly in 4 months as people say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The principal who my fellow Janney parents chased away with their constant demands did actually already answer the exact question in this thread when the Q4 plans were announced: It had to do with what the Q3 model was, in addition to the health and safety protocols. And the local school advisory team was involved in the decisions for both Q3 and Q4.

I realize it may be more satisfying emotionally to just assert that the principal is somehow not doing her job or that the teachers are being obstinate for no reason, but in reality, there's an explanation for this decision. Disliking the results of the decision doesn't also require you to pretend there was no reason for it.

Can you say the reasons more explicitly? I don’t understand how other ES schools with large student populations are able to return fully but Janney cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The principal who my fellow Janney parents chased away with their constant demands did actually already answer the exact question in this thread when the Q4 plans were announced: It had to do with what the Q3 model was, in addition to the health and safety protocols. And the local school advisory team was involved in the decisions for both Q3 and Q4.

I realize it may be more satisfying emotionally to just assert that the principal is somehow not doing her job or that the teachers are being obstinate for no reason, but in reality, there's an explanation for this decision. Disliking the results of the decision doesn't also require you to pretend there was no reason for it.

Can you say the reasons more explicitly? I don’t understand how other ES schools with large student populations are able to return fully but Janney cannot.

This was from the email announcing the Q4 plans:

As with Advisory 3 plans, there will be comparisons between individual school models. I’ve largely stayed away from explaining our model in comparison to other school models – it’s important for us to remain focused on what we can/are doing and not on what other schools are able to do. However, each school’s ability to expand programming for Advisory 4 not only relates to the health and safety protocols, but also to the Advisory 3 model that the school chose.

I have received some questions from our families with students in half-day programming related to whether we would be able to increase the half-day offerings to full days now that class caps have been lifted. As I explained in my Tuesday newsletter, other restrictions have not been lifted and the expansion to full days would require more resources. I am choosing to focus our limited resources (classroom space and staff) on offering some form of in-person programming to all of our upper grade students who remain at home and want to return. I can’t justify moving all of our younger students in half-day classes who have been at school for Advisory 3 to larger classrooms and providing more adults to support teacher planning and break coverage when there are so many students in grades 3-5 at home who want to return.

The more complicated answer on why some schools can offer more full days of instruction is because they use Simulcasting – we opted out of using this model school-wide for a variety of reasons. The LSAT discussed this possibility in November/December and ultimately decided against it. The impact on the virtual-only students, especially our younger students, is significant and the demand on our teachers would be high. It’s hard to properly visualize a classroom that’s Simulcasting, but imagine a teacher at her laptop teaching to the kids on the screen and to the kids in-person at the same time – or imagine that teacher instructing the in-person kids, then asking them to do independent work or to be quiet while the teacher then instructs the kids on a screen – you can see how everyone could get less in this model. However, this model does allow more students to return for more time now that class caps have been lifted - in a class of 20 students with 15 who wanted to go back for Advisory 3, those 15 can all return to school on the same days for Advisory 4 and not be spread out over M/Tu or Th/F.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks like a combination of space issues (not all classrooms can fit all students with 3 ft) and some teachers who are not reporting. My concern is that there are these announcements of fully opening in the fall with no information as to how we get from here to fully open 4 months from now. What would case levels need to be to drop the 3 ft rule? Are teachers who are not reporting in person now going to be required to report in person? The empty messaging in concerning because companies and agencies are planning for a return with these. Fully open is very far from where we are now and I have realized after 13 months that things don’t change as quickly in 4 months as people say.

I don't know. 5th grade is currently only back 2 half days per week. (6 hours total). That is in large part because 2/5 teachers are declining to come in at all. Are they really going to agree to come in full-time next year? I would not want to be a rising 5th grade parent OR the new principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks like a combination of space issues (not all classrooms can fit all students with 3 ft) and some teachers who are not reporting. My concern is that there are these announcements of fully opening in the fall with no information as to how we get from here to fully open 4 months from now. What would case levels need to be to drop the 3 ft rule? Are teachers who are not reporting in person now going to be required to report in person? The empty messaging in concerning because companies and agencies are planning for a return with these. Fully open is very far from where we are now and I have realized after 13 months that things don’t change as quickly in 4 months as people say.

I don't know. 5th grade is currently only back 2 half days per week. (6 hours total). That is in large part because 2/5 teachers are declining to come in at all. Are they really going to agree to come in full-time next year? I would not want to be a rising 5th grade parent OR the new principal.

There's no indication that they'll have a choice by the fall -- they'll all have been vaccinated or had the chance to be vaccinated (which wasn't the case when Q3 started this year), and the school system has already notified them that they'll be expected to be in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the teachers in third grade are doing in person this term. But because of space limitations, it's only two full days a week for each class. The children will be on their regular virtual schedule on the other days so no loss of virtual instruction the other days. I am satisfied with this situation.

2 full days is 14 hours of IPL. Some grades literally have 5 hours of IPL and their DL has been cut as well. My child has one day where she has only one instructional block (not Weds).

[Anonymous]

What is the deal with second grade? I understand that many kids did not “win the lottery” to get an IPL slot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks like a combination of space issues (not all classrooms can fit all students with 3 ft) and some teachers who are not reporting. My concern is that there are these announcements of fully opening in the fall with no information as to how we get from here to fully open 4 months from now. What would case levels need to be to drop the 3 ft rule? Are teachers who are not reporting in person now going to be required to report in person? The empty messaging in concerning because companies and agencies are planning for a return with these. Fully open is very far from where we are now and I have realized after 13 months that things don’t change as quickly in 4 months as people say.

I don't know. 5th grade is currently only back 2 half days per week. (6 hours total). That is in large part because 2/5 teachers are declining to come in at all. Are they really going to agree to come in full-time next year? I would not want to be a rising 5th grade parent OR the new principal.

It’s not even 6 hours- that’s rounding up. And the rest of the week, the DL time slots are so limited- they have 2 “independent work” blocks in a row!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The principal who my fellow Janney parents chased away with their constant demands did actually already answer the exact question in this thread when the Q4 plans were announced: It had to do with what the Q3 model was, in addition to the health and safety protocols. And the local school advisory team was involved in the decisions for both Q3 and Q4.

I realize it may be more satisfying emotionally to just assert that the principal is somehow not doing her job or that the teachers are being obstinate for no reason, but in reality, there's an explanation for this decision. Disliking the results of the decision doesn't also require you to pretend there was no reason for it.

Can you say the reasons more explicitly? I don’t understand how other ES schools with large student populations are able to return fully but Janney cannot.

This was from the email announcing the Q4 plans:

As with Advisory 3 plans, there will be comparisons between individual school models. I’ve largely stayed away from explaining our model in comparison to other school models – it’s important for us to remain focused on what we can/are doing and not on what other schools are able to do. However, each school’s ability to expand programming for Advisory 4 not only relates to the health and safety protocols, but also to the Advisory 3 model that the school chose.

I have received some questions from our families with students in half-day programming related to whether we would be able to increase the half-day offerings to full days now that class caps have been lifted. As I explained in my Tuesday newsletter, other restrictions have not been lifted and the expansion to full days would require more resources. I am choosing to focus our limited resources (classroom space and staff) on offering some form of in-person programming to all of our upper grade students who remain at home and want to return. I can’t justify moving all of our younger students in half-day classes who have been at school for Advisory 3 to larger classrooms and providing more adults to support teacher planning and break coverage when there are so many students in grades 3-5 at home who want to return.

The more complicated answer on why some schools can offer more full days of instruction is because they use Simulcasting – we opted out of using this model school-wide for a variety of reasons. The LSAT discussed this possibility in November/December and ultimately decided against it. The impact on the virtual-only students, especially our younger students, is significant and the demand on our teachers would be high. It’s hard to properly visualize a classroom that’s Simulcasting, but imagine a teacher at her laptop teaching to the kids on the screen and to the kids in-person at the same time – or imagine that teacher instructing the in-person kids, then asking them to do independent work or to be quiet while the teacher then instructs the kids on a screen – you can see how everyone could get less in this model. However, this model does allow more students to return for more time now that class caps have been lifted - in a class of 20 students with 15 who wanted to go back for Advisory 3, those 15 can all return to school on the same days for Advisory 4 and not be spread out over M/Tu or Th/F.

This is not true for Q4. Our school is switching teachers around so IPL kids and teachers are together and DL teachers and kids are together. There are downsides to swapping teachers of course, but in total I am very supportive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure the principal can force staff back but it's not 4 days a week because there are teachers who are refusing to come back.

At a Lafayette Principal Broquard got the job done. The only teachers who have not come
back have an ADA exemption. The Principal shows real leadership and care for students in bringing back over 700 kids today. She has the right priorities.