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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.

Homeless has higher preference. If you got in all homeless kids are in at your school. Welfare kids are after ell/iep kids unless they have an iep or are ell themselves. You an talk to the school about whether the person behind you on the waitlist is a high category iep or someone who has an iep for an hour of speech therapy a month. My child only gets 30 minutes to an hour a day of pull outs but has adhd and learning disabilities and will benefit TREMENDOUSLY from in person even though his IEP is low. It really is case by case. Needy is hard to quantify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

In the absence of medical or research based categorization (with clear, documented benchmarks) assigned to each child this could not and should not have been discretionary (vs lottery). To have done so would have opened schools up to pressure from activist parents, a requirement to do discrimination testing on the final results (which would have delayed implementation) and lawsuits. That's the reality. I will defend almost nothing DCPS has done, but doing this as a lottery with broad categories was the right move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.

I actually think homeless kids get priority over other groups.

I thought the same thing because they were listed as Category 1, but our principal said all categories are lumped. Maybe to protect identities..so it's not obvious to everyone else who is homeless? Don't know, but ya.... transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

In the absence of medical or research based categorization (with clear, documented benchmarks) assigned to each child this could not and should not have been discretionary (vs lottery). To have done so would have opened schools up to pressure from activist parents, a requirement to do discrimination testing on the final results (which would have delayed implementation) and lawsuits. That's the reality. I will defend almost nothing DCPS has done, but doing this as a lottery with broad categories was the right move.

I agree. It's really hard to parse this put and letting the schools decide leads to bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.

I actually think homeless kids get priority over other groups.

I thought the same thing because they were listed as Category 1, but our principal said all categories are lumped. Maybe to protect identities..so it's not obvious to everyone else who is homeless? Don't know, but ya.... transparency.

Ours said different. Homeless get in first than ieps/ells then at risk. If you are multiple categories you lottery with the higher ranked group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

In the absence of medical or research based categorization (with clear, documented benchmarks) assigned to each child this could not and should not have been discretionary (vs lottery). To have done so would have opened schools up to pressure from activist parents, a requirement to do discrimination testing on the final results (which would have delayed implementation) and lawsuits. That's the reality. I will defend almost nothing DCPS has done, but doing this as a lottery with broad categories was the right move.

except it’s pretty easy to categorize IEPs by service hours. I would have no issue ranking like that.

[Anonymous]

Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

I was thinking that too. More manageable for the teacher and for learning.

[Anonymous]

We got a spot at Lafayette. My kid has an IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

I was thinking that too. More manageable for the teacher and for learning.

They created this with the input of their general counsel - it is so much harder to win a sped lawsuit than most recognize. DCPS fights every private placement tooth and nail these days (anyone citing anything beyond the past 4 yrs Is out of date) And DC has a horrendous record on serving special needs to start with. The best you can do is call your school (lea and principal) and require an immediate IEP meeting - and be the sqeekiest wheel possible about them not meeting the IEP or kids needs - so they can use one of their 2 discretionary school slots per grade on you. And regardless calling an IEP mtg to adapt to distance learning is worth doing. Don’t sign anything that takes anything away - only things that add to what you have. And document everything that is not meeting your kids needs. (Them not meeting needs during a global pandemic is not ever going to get you private placement or even damages - but negotiation for the future when you will need intensive catch up services).

[Anonymous]

So at least some people have heard from Brent, SWS, Van Ness, Janney, Lafayette, Hearst, Mitch, Shepherd per this and other threads. Any others?

[Anonymous]

^^ Murch (not Mitch, obvi)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So at least some people have heard from Brent, SWS, Van Ness, Janney, Lafayette, Hearst, Mitch, Shepherd per this and other threads. Any others?

Have any schools had exceptions that have been made? Sounds like some schools have been able to skip having in person in some grades??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at least some people have heard from Brent, SWS, Van Ness, Janney, Lafayette, Hearst, Mitch, Shepherd per this and other threads. Any others?

Have any schools had exceptions that have been made? Sounds like some schools have been able to skip having in person in some grades??

I don’t think it’s about a school getting an exception. I think the burden is on teachers to document why they can’t return. If a school only has two teachers per grade the chances are higher that there will be no available teachers in any given grade.

If the above info is incorrect I’m sure others will correct me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

The bolded phrase above tells us you have no idea WTH you are talking about. First, no one "knows" what will or won't survive a lawsuit. Second, no rational actor deploys anything like this without discrimination testing. I have no idea what you do for a living but I know for damn sure it isn't the practice of law.

P.S. Which is good for those of us in the Bar.