Does Council bill just let people keep their kids home and not educate them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the point is that if you are a long-time family who is in good with your school administration, you get to take advantage of this dumb loophole. If not, sorry. Which is about the most self-serving privileged legislative carve-out I can imagine. Congrats to the the movement leaders.

exactly.

but it also probably has negative repercussions on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I genuinely cannot see how anyone can morally support this. It is legally sanctioned child abuse, agreed to only so some wealthy parents get to keep their charter spots.

Please write your council member.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what others do? We planned to keep ours home if we did not get into virtual. Given the health pandemic, lack of safety precautions it was a no for us.

I don't think anyone cares what you do personally but they do care about how what you're doing affects others given the lack of resources available to DCPS. If this is were just a case of being able to throw some additional money at virtual options, pretty sure no one would care that you want to stay home until it's "safe". But that is not the case, and people don't want their in-person experience ruined to accommodate a minority of parents, most of whom sound like they need health anxiety therapy instead of actually needing a virtual option.

This is exactly it. 7 pages of people complaining about equity when they very obviously are just worried about being inconvenienced

+1 it’s the schools open at all costs folks freaking out that this will affect them (it won’t) and doing it in the name of abused kids that they really don’t give an F about.

no that's the other thread about charters.

I don't understand why you aren't concerned about child abuse or educational neglect.

I *am* concerned about it. That’s why I’m glad the council recognizes that parents keeping their kids home temporarily this semester aren’t abusing or neglecting them. CPS has more important things to do.

Honestly, keeping your healthy kid home because you’re scared of covid actually is neglect at this point. Especially if they have any special needs or mentsl health issues.

I’m the PP and my kids are in school. But I am also able to have empathy for people who have one high risk kid and some siblings or people who have an immunocompromised high risk adult in the family, or people who have run the numbers and figure a couple more months of virtual aren’t actually going to do any damage to their kids if they have them do some worksheets. The mayor created this situation by not standing up virtual with rules that made sense.

And that scenario is not one that anyone is having an issue with in this thread.

Because you are the privileged class. How can you still not see that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

Meanwhile, this legislation impacts you in NO WAY (although many of you like to pretend to draw connections), yet we’re now at 11 pages of you shaming families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

No, not them. The ones who want to have bespoke schooling for their non-immunocompromised children, even when they don't have other immunocompromised family members.

Which is what the thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

Meanwhile, this legislation impacts you in NO WAY (although many of you like to pretend to draw connections), yet we’re now at 11 pages of you shaming families

Yeah but it does likely lead to educational neglect and child abuse. So I get to care about that. The question is why don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

No, not them. The ones who want to have bespoke schooling for their non-immunocompromised children, even when they don't have other immunocompromised family members.

Which is what the thread is about.

That’s just made up nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

I do like that the "i want to keep my kid home just because" people are hiding behind the people with actual needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

No, not them. The ones who want to have bespoke schooling for their non-immunocompromised children, even when they don't have other immunocompromised family members.

Which is what the thread is about.

That’s just made up nonsense.

No, that's literally in the bill. Some people can just keep their kids home until January, without virtual school and without homeschooling, as long as the school says it is ok. But it's just, apparently, for a select few that the school deems worthy, not everyone. How is that not bespoke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Council's emergency bill:

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns 72 around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

https://legiscan.com/DC/text/PR24-0375/2021

Does that mean anyone can keep their kid home, not do any virtual learning (since just being concerned doesn't qualify you for virtual), not homeschool, and just have a semester of excused absence?

How...how is that legal?

to again reiterate.

The issue isn't about the kids with immunocompromised family members getting access to virtual. No one is disagreeing with that (at least on this thread). No one is disagreeing with the shift from doctors "requiring" to doctors "recommending" virtual. No one (on this thread) has any issue with the families with actual medical needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

Meanwhile, this legislation impacts you in NO WAY (although many of you like to pretend to draw connections), yet we’re now at 11 pages of you shaming families

The Council can correct this loophole. The vocal minority can press them to consider how their demands have created a loophole to engage in legal educational neglect and potential child abuse. There can be structures around how these parents stay home with their kids (without virtual). Some sort of homeschool-like application would do it, I'd imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

I doubt schools were asking for this. And the “long time families” trying to extract special treatment because of their status should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what others do? We planned to keep ours home if we did not get into virtual. Given the health pandemic, lack of safety precautions it was a no for us.

I don't think anyone cares what you do personally but they do care about how what you're doing affects others given the lack of resources available to DCPS. If this is were just a case of being able to throw some additional money at virtual options, pretty sure no one would care that you want to stay home until it's "safe". But that is not the case, and people don't want their in-person experience ruined to accommodate a minority of parents, most of whom sound like they need health anxiety therapy instead of actually needing a virtual option.

This is exactly it. 7 pages of people complaining about equity when they very obviously are just worried about being inconvenienced

+1 it’s the schools open at all costs folks freaking out that this will affect them (it won’t) and doing it in the name of abused kids that they really don’t give an F about.

no that's the other thread about charters.

I don't understand why you aren't concerned about child abuse or educational neglect.

I *am* concerned about it. That’s why I’m glad the council recognizes that parents keeping their kids home temporarily this semester aren’t abusing or neglecting them. CPS has more important things to do.

Honestly, keeping your healthy kid home because you’re scared of covid actually is neglect at this point. Especially if they have any special needs or mentsl health issues.

I’m the PP and my kids are in school. But I am also able to have empathy for people who have one high risk kid and some siblings or people who have an immunocompromised high risk adult in the family, or people who have run the numbers and figure a couple more months of virtual aren’t actually going to do any damage to their kids if they have them do some worksheets. The mayor created this situation by not standing up virtual with rules that made sense.

And that scenario is not one that anyone is having an issue with in this thread.

Except that you are. The mayor’s virtual option did not allow any of those people to do DCPS virtual. None of them. The mayor refused to expand virtual after being repeatedly pressured by the council. So they went around her.

And she was right to limit virtual to those children who medically need it. Enough is enough - kids need to go to school.