BOE Fall Plan Meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Don’t vote for Trump this time, then.

Are you kidding?

At least Trump wants to get kids back in school. MoCo leadership / the Democrats have abandoned Science and let fear prevail.

He may want them back in school but it’s not because he cares about kids, education or mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Don’t vote for Trump this time, then.

Dude. Stop with the Trump thing. This is Montgomery County. The people who disagree with you about schools in Montgomery County, agree with you about Trump.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Don’t vote for Trump this time, then.

Are you kidding?

At least Trump wants to get kids back in school. MoCo leadership / the Democrats have abandoned Science and let fear prevail.

Am I kidding? No, I am not. The ony difference between us and countries that aren’t dealing with this now is that this chucklehead is in charge.

You are delusional. Every country in the world is dealing with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Don’t vote for Trump this time, then.

Are you kidding?

At least Trump wants to get kids back in school. MoCo leadership / the Democrats have abandoned Science and let fear prevail.

He may want them back in school but it’s not because he cares about kids, education or mental health.

And it’s apparent that the BOE and the Democrats in charge of MoCo don’t care about kids or their education and mental health either.

Keeping kids away from school is not going to be beneficial for their overall education and definitely not good for their mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Am I kidding? No, I am not. The ony difference between us and countries that aren’t dealing with this now is that this chucklehead is in charge.

You are delusional. Every country in the world is dealing with this much better than the US, except for Brazil which also has a chucklehead in charge.

I fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Yep. This.

Highly unlikely there will even be an in person option for the entire school year. Along with no school sports. Don’t worry, PP. Your wish for DL has been granted.

Sorry, kids. We decided yet again that you're not important. We're hurting ourselves as well as you in the long run, but for right now, we'll tell ourselves that you'll be just fine. After all, you're not dead, and that's good enough, right?

Not dead is the starting place for life. Unless a posthumous diploma is good enough for your kid.

Not dead is NOT good enough. If we wanted, we could have the kids be (a) not dead (b) receiving an appropriate education. But evidently we don't wanna.

Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

[Anonymous]

https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

If you're going to assess risk, don't assess the risk that there will be somebody in the building with you who has covid. Assess the risk that you will actually get covid from somebody in the building with you who has covid. And if you're wearing a mask, and this person who may or may not be in the building with you is wearing a mask, the risk that you will actually get covid is very low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

If you're going to assess risk, don't assess the risk that there will be somebody in the building with you who has covid. Assess the risk that you will actually get covid from somebody in the building with you who has covid. And if you're wearing a mask, and this person who may or may not be in the building with you is wearing a mask, the risk that you will actually get covid is very low.

Umm, no. Because if they test positive, your kid & their teacher will be home on mandatory quarantine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

If you're going to assess risk, don't assess the risk that there will be somebody in the building with you who has covid. Assess the risk that you will actually get covid from somebody in the building with you who has covid. And if you're wearing a mask, and this person who may or may not be in the building with you is wearing a mask, the risk that you will actually get covid is very low.

Umm, no. Because if they test positive, your kid & their teacher will be home on mandatory quarantine.

The outcome you're trying to prevent is people being home on quarantine? And you're trying to prevent this outcome (people staying home) by keeping schools closed so people stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

If you're going to assess risk, don't assess the risk that there will be somebody in the building with you who has covid. Assess the risk that you will actually get covid from somebody in the building with you who has covid. And if you're wearing a mask, and this person who may or may not be in the building with you is wearing a mask, the risk that you will actually get covid is very low.

Umm, no. Because if they test positive, your kid & their teacher will be home on mandatory quarantine.

The outcome you're trying to prevent is people being home on quarantine? And you're trying to prevent this outcome (people staying home) by keeping schools closed so people stay home?

And you're trying to open schools, only to have classrooms and perhaps entire schools close -- possibly repeatedly -- when people inevitably test positive? Stable DL is preferable to chaotic in-person.

[Anonymous]

It is unlikely there will be any in-person school. I think they spent significantly more time trying to explain the plan, then the board got time to discuss it and ask questions.

This is a ploy, mcps presents an overly complicated plan that will never work. Teachers are opposed to teaching in the classroom, and Coved numbers are skewing slightly up. When it turns out we will be distance learning the whole year, Jack Smith can blame the unions. Not his fault.

Back to the overly complicated plan. Every 3 weeks, high schoolers attend 4 days of school? And the rest of the time they're having sex, getting pregnant and getting STDs, not to mention smoking and drinking too much and getting into car accidents. Younger kids, left at home without their parents are burning down their homes, or one parent quits their job to oversee the young 'uns.

As for fall Sports, which was asked about by Smondrowski, O'Neill and maybe someone else, they punted. It's unlikely, but they said the state would decide, not them. My money is on not a chance.

We can't have Elementary schoolers in middle school and high school buildings, because the buildings don't meet the code for the students. not to mention it would take so many hours to study such a plan.

Is anyone else sick and tired of listening to the mcps staff talk about how many hours they're working? And how hard they're working? First off they should be grateful to have a job. Second off, do they not think the rest of us aren't trying to figure out how to manage our jobs, and take care of our children, and stay alive? We're all doing the same damn thing, the pandemic is worldwide. I wish they would stop wasting everyone's time patting themselves on the back for something the rest of us do everyday.

And by the way, the parent survey just closed. No way they used any data from the survey to inform any of this nonsensical plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity doesn’t mean “the same”. What your middle class NT, straight cis child living in a two parent suburban home needs may look like “back to normal” to you and feel like hell to someone else. There are children who blossomed academically during COL because they weren’t being bullied every day. There are kids with chronic health issues who got stronger because they were more well-rested and less exposed to minor bugs. There were ADHD students who could focus better at home than in a classroom. Why do you hate that they might get the option for DL. You put your kid on hybrid and let others decide for themselves.

It's 100% guaranteed that there will be a remote instruction option for people (like you) who want a remote-instruction option for their kids.

In contrast, it's looking increasingly doubtful that there will be a school option for people who want a school option for their kids.

Don’t vote for Trump this time, then.

Are you kidding?

At least Trump wants to get kids back in school. MoCo leadership / the Democrats have abandoned Science and let fear prevail.

Am I kidding? No, I am not. The ony difference between us and countries that aren’t dealing with this now is that this chucklehead is in charge.

You are delusional. Every country in the world is dealing with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then let’s stop wasting time and just work on getting the best DL ever.

+1000

THIS!

Many places doing this and educators advocating for it. It’s a heavy lift to do it well, but with the right PD, we can make it happen.
- teacher trainer

Well, it's going to happen, whether people like it or not.

The second wave is coming to the DC area, and I hope you're all ready for it.

Why would it? We've been taking precautions and not lifting restrictions.

People have vacationed in hotspots and bringing back the virus.

Where is the proof of that?

Google it. Loudon county teens brought back virus from SC beaches, infecting approximately 130 other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because we wanna go to bars and restaurants and the beach and not wear masks more than we want to get case counts low enough to get kids back in schools.

Here's my new favorite tool: Event risk assessment "The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event"
Today, for a 10 person event (ES classroom) there is a 10% chance that one of the people there is COVID-19 positive. For a 100 person event (7 HS classes) there is a 65% likelihood that someone will be COVID-19 positive. When we get case counts low enough that the chance is <1%, then lets talk about sending kids back. Until then, stop blaming MCPS for the problem.

If you're going to assess risk, don't assess the risk that there will be somebody in the building with you who has covid. Assess the risk that you will actually get covid from somebody in the building with you who has covid. And if you're wearing a mask, and this person who may or may not be in the building with you is wearing a mask, the risk that you will actually get covid is very low.

Then I really hope all the parents who are gunning for their kids to go back to school full-time are teaching them how to wear masks for 7 hours a day at a time because I really wouldn't bet on five year olds knowing how to wear masks properly. In nine years I've had one kindergarten student who knew how to sneeze into her elbow (And she was the daughter of a teacher).