testify to SAVE Mayoral control of DCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point.

God forbid someone speak out about a legitimate problem they experienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point.

God forbid someone speak out about a legitimate problem they experienced.

Speaking out about SN frustration is one thing; framing this as teachers going on strike because they refused to support SN kids is another.

[Anonymous]

At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

oh are we pretending the whole sick out thing didn't happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

+1

So completely off thread, but its amazing that parents still think they know what would have been better for schools than both teachers (the WTU) and principals (the CSO) and the SBOE. Nobody with educational expertise thought that november plan was good. It wouldn't have come to that extreme if it wasn't for (here's where we tie it back to the thread) Mayoral Control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

+1

So completely off thread, but its amazing that parents still think they know what would have been better for schools than both teachers (the WTU) and principals (the CSO) and the SBOE. Nobody with educational expertise thought that november plan was good. It wouldn't have come to that extreme if it wasn't for (here's where we tie it back to the thread) Mayoral Control

that is totally false. the November plan was scrapped due to false fearmongering about covid. the principals had an issue with staffing, nothing to do with the actual educational bona fides. EVERYONE who actually cared about THE SN KIDS knew they should be back in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

+1

So completely off thread, but its amazing that parents still think they know what would have been better for schools than both teachers (the WTU) and principals (the CSO) and the SBOE. Nobody with educational expertise thought that november plan was good. It wouldn't have come to that extreme if it wasn't for (here's where we tie it back to the thread) Mayoral Control

that is totally false. the November plan was scrapped due to false fearmongering about covid. the principals had an issue with staffing, nothing to do with the actual educational bona fides. EVERYONE who actually cared about THE SN KIDS knew they should be back in school.

Oh also I missed your "better for schools" formulation. Very telling to see schools as primarily serving the interests of employees as opposed to the kids. Very telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point.

God forbid someone speak out about a legitimate problem they experienced.

Speaking out about SN frustration is one thing; framing this as teachers going on strike because they refused to support SN kids is another.

I don't really care to play the "framing" argument. They went on strike to block SN kids from going back to the classroom. That's undeniable, not a question of framing. Subjectively, I'm sure some of those teachers cared. But the impact of their actions was to refuse to help SN kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of having most posts referring to a specific organization deleted, the PP has a rational interpretation of prior events. Your interpretation might be different. But I think it's time to acknowledge that some people saw what happened and believed that a certain organization did not want its members to have to go in to school for even a small portion of kids with greater needs.

+1

So completely off thread, but its amazing that parents still think they know what would have been better for schools than both teachers (the WTU) and principals (the CSO) and the SBOE. Nobody with educational expertise thought that november plan was good. It wouldn't have come to that extreme if it wasn't for (here's where we tie it back to the thread) Mayoral Control

Schools exist to serve children, not teachers or principals.

I say this as a former teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point.

God forbid someone speak out about a legitimate problem they experienced.

Speaking out about SN frustration is one thing; framing this as teachers going on strike because they refused to support SN kids is another.

I don't really care to play the "framing" argument. They went on strike to block SN kids from going back to the classroom. That's undeniable, not a question of framing. Subjectively, I'm sure some of those teachers cared. But the impact of their actions was to refuse to help SN kids.

as it was then, this is still incorrect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, parents speak for kids, not teachers. As a parent of SN kids, I'm extremely offended by the idea that a teacher should speak for my kids. Teachers went on strike to protest returning to work to support my IEP kid in November 2020, including my kid's teacher who just watched my child fall through the cracks without even trying to offer even virtual support. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've sat across from WTU members who lied about my child's abilities to support reducing services.

All you "we love the teachers" parents who think the teachers are looking out for your kids above their own employment terms are just insane.

The plural of anecdote is not data. During the pandemic our school added another evaluation for our SN child because they thought there was an undiagnosed LD at play. I definitely was frustrated by the lack of in-person services, but holy hell, it was a pandemic. I don't expect a teacher to put their life on the line for my child. My SN child was one of the first to return in early spring after teachers were vaccinated.

And what strike are you talking about? None of your post makes sense. What WAS happening in November was a record-setting number of covid cases, surpassing the previous peak.

You sound like you have misplaced anger issues.

That PP has posted something similar on dozens of threads at this point.

God forbid someone speak out about a legitimate problem they experienced.

Speaking out about SN frustration is one thing; framing this as teachers going on strike because they refused to support SN kids is another.

I don't really care to play the "framing" argument. They went on strike to block SN kids from going back to the classroom. That's undeniable, not a question of framing. Subjectively, I'm sure some of those teachers cared. But the impact of their actions was to refuse to help SN kids.

as it was then, this is still incorrect

It is not incorrect. Their actions blocked SN kids from going to school. You may support their motivations but you cannot deny what their actions were.

[Anonymous]

If we call it a "sick out" and not a strike can we stop arguing about what happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we call it a "sick out" and not a strike can we stop arguing about what happened?

I don’t really care - they are both illegal concerted actions that were specifically intended to keep SN kids out of school. The only reason the terminology argument matters is because it shows how dumb certain people are to think calling it a “sick out” somehow changes the labor law or political implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we call it a "sick out" and not a strike can we stop arguing about what happened?

I don’t really care - they are both illegal concerted actions that were specifically intended to keep SN kids out of school. The only reason the terminology argument matters is because it shows how dumb certain people are to think calling it a “sick out” somehow changes the labor law or political implications.

Oh, I was wondering if that's what the "incorrect" person was quibbling with. Also, the "intention" I doubt was specifically to keep SN kids out of school -- that was the impact, certainly. But again I can see the quibbling being about "intent".