Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

what a logistical nightmare!

[Anonymous]

That schedule is extremely difficult on families with inflexible work schedules, which would be most of the low income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That schedule is extremely difficult on families with inflexible work schedules, which would be most of the low income families.

This. And if you don’t care whether parents can work and support their families, then you don’t care about kids. Telling people to go hire nannies is absurd and, as others have pointed out, the health implications of destitution are real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Met with someone today who spoke to someone pretty high up in central office at MCPS. According to her, at the elementary level, the top proposal is a split day and split weeks combined.

You'd have one set of kids (A) go mornings only, on M-W the first week, and Th-Fr (mornings) on the second week. Then (B) goes M-W afternoons only on first week, and Th-Fr afternoons second week. Then you have groups C and D doing the opposite schedule. This also ensures every kid is in school at least a few days per week, so they can distribute free meals.

In other words, the classes would be 1/4 the size they are now, as they're broken into 4 groups, and each kid is in school 1/4 of the time they used to be.

Didn't get any info on middle and high school plans.

We have kids in ES. Ok, that's better than online only, and it ensures social distancing, but having kids in school 1/4 of the time isn't great. I'm not blaming MCPS on this one (and usually, I do) as this is a tough situation to plan for.

This will be close to impossible for any family that doesn't have a parent at home, and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am also surprised that people can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that many viruses dramatically decline in summer. The fact that we are still seeing increases in some states and Maryland is still holding steady for the most part is concerning given the warmer weather. Once the kids go back to school, the weather benefits will start to decrease. This has to be considered in the reopening plan. The pandemic is far from over.

Many viruses do, but this particular coronavirus apparently does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers don't want to go back. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100% online again because that's what the teachers' unions are pushing for. They have schools over a barrel.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I know that you feel otherwise but your children’s lives are no more important than anyone else’s. Even if that person is eighty years old or 45 and a cancer survivor. Your children are not less important, but no, them going back to school full time so you can work is not more important than mitigating the spread of the pandemic. We will not be ending social distancing in schools. I’m a teacher and I’m not throwing caution to the wind to appease you. You are free to go out and expose yourself and your children to the virus at will but you can not demand that other people be reckless and foolish enough to do so.

The future of the children of this country is actually tremendously important.

There are enormous, known costs to keeping schools closed - starting with (1) our children missing out on education (2) working parents being unable to work. In contrast, the benefits to keeping schools closed are unknown and quite possibly small. When the costs of keeping schools closed are known and enormous, while the benefits of keeping schools closed are unknown and small, it's immoral and foolish to keep schools closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I know that you feel otherwise but your children’s lives are no more important than anyone else’s. Even if that person is eighty years old or 45 and a cancer survivor. Your children are not less important, but no, them going back to school full time so you can work is not more important than mitigating the spread of the pandemic. We will not be ending social distancing in schools. I’m a teacher and I’m not throwing caution to the wind to appease you. You are free to go out and expose yourself and your children to the virus at will but you can not demand that other people be reckless and foolish enough to do so.

The future of the children of this country is actually tremendously important.

There are enormous, known costs to keeping schools closed - starting with (1) our children missing out on education (2) working parents being unable to work. In contrast, the benefits to keeping schools closed are unknown and quite possibly small. When the costs of keeping schools closed are known and enormous, while the benefits of keeping schools closed are unknown and small, it's immoral and foolish to keep schools closed.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met with someone today who spoke to someone pretty high up in central office at MCPS. According to her, at the elementary level, the top proposal is a split day and split weeks combined.

You'd have one set of kids (A) go mornings only, on M-W the first week, and Th-Fr (mornings) on the second week. Then (B) goes M-W afternoons only on first week, and Th-Fr afternoons second week. Then you have groups C and D doing the opposite schedule. This also ensures every kid is in school at least a few days per week, so they can distribute free meals.

In other words, the classes would be 1/4 the size they are now, as they're broken into 4 groups, and each kid is in school 1/4 of the time they used to be.

Didn't get any info on middle and high school plans.

We have kids in ES. Ok, that's better than online only, and it ensures social distancing, but having kids in school 1/4 of the time isn't great. I'm not blaming MCPS on this one (and usually, I do) as this is a tough situation to plan for.

Do they have a timeline for how long this would be for? Like this Can't work for the long term. Are they thinking until winter break.

This is so dumb because by fall literally everything else will be open.

I didn't get any information on that, unfortunately. My guess is it would need to last least one marking period at a minimum, and probably until winter break when they have time to transition to whatever would be the next model after that.

This is a massive school system and it takes a lot of planning to put anything into place. Heck, at my 100-person company it seems to take weeks just to execute on anything, and we don't even have much bureaucracy!

[Anonymous]

I really hope that school opens in the fall. But in case it doesn’t, or there needs to be some sort of hybrid model, I’m glad that MCPS is actually doing some planning now. I certainly hope any distance learning greatly improves from this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met with someone today who spoke to someone pretty high up in central office at MCPS. According to her, at the elementary level, the top proposal is a split day and split weeks combined.

You'd have one set of kids (A) go mornings only, on M-W the first week, and Th-Fr (mornings) on the second week. Then (B) goes M-W afternoons only on first week, and Th-Fr afternoons second week. Then you have groups C and D doing the opposite schedule. This also ensures every kid is in school at least a few days per week, so they can distribute free meals.

In other words, the classes would be 1/4 the size they are now, as they're broken into 4 groups, and each kid is in school 1/4 of the time they used to be.

Didn't get any info on middle and high school plans.

We have kids in ES. Ok, that's better than online only, and it ensures social distancing, but having kids in school 1/4 of the time isn't great. I'm not blaming MCPS on this one (and usually, I do) as this is a tough situation to plan for.

Do they have a timeline for how long this would be for? Like this Can't work for the long term. Are they thinking until winter break.

This is so dumb because by fall literally everything else will be open.

I would think these are contingency plans in case things do not improve by 31 August.

They can't wait until then to make a decision. There are a lot of pieces that need to fall into place to execute any plan. I think they'd have a few weeks at most before making a final decision. Also, isn't there a clause in the teachers' contracts that they have until a certain date to "resign without prejudice"? I believe that's in June or July, and they'd need to have a decision made by then to get the teacher's union to sign on to the plan, so at-risk members can bow out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that school opens in the fall. But in case it doesn’t, or there needs to be some sort of hybrid model, I’m glad that MCPS is actually doing some planning now. I certainly hope any distance learning greatly improves from this year.

I hope they've been planning since February at a minimum. The staff at the main office has increased at double the rate of teachers, so I'd hope at least some of all those people are working on having all contingency plans in place!

[Anonymous]

Has the county announced when they’ll make a decision on the go-forward plan in fall? It’s nuts to think that families, particularly those of us who work in jobs outside the home, can pivot on a dime and, say, be home half days for kids who are on a 1/2 day schedule.

Not to mention my job isn’t flexible and I do t earn enough to pay $20 - $30 per hour after taxes for a nanny. Does the county realize most of its families are making $300k a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the county announced when they’ll make a decision on the go-forward plan in fall? It’s nuts to think that families, particularly those of us who work in jobs outside the home, can pivot on a dime and, say, be home half days for kids who are on a 1/2 day schedule.

Not to mention my job isn’t flexible and I do t earn enough to pay $20 - $30 per hour after taxes for a nanny. Does the county realize most of its families are making $300k a year?

I think only ES kids are going back for F2F instruction because of childcare/ work issues. I also heard that spreading them out amongst MS and HS buildings in addition to ES schools and relocating secondary teachers is also on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the county announced when they’ll make a decision on the go-forward plan in fall? It’s nuts to think that families, particularly those of us who work in jobs outside the home, can pivot on a dime and, say, be home half days for kids who are on a 1/2 day schedule.

Not to mention my job isn’t flexible and I do t earn enough to pay $20 - $30 per hour after taxes for a nanny. Does the county realize most of its families are making $300k a year?

I think only ES kids are going back for F2F instruction because of childcare/ work issues. I also heard that spreading them out amongst MS and HS buildings in addition to ES schools and relocating secondary teachers is also on the table.

Middle-school and high-school kids need to go back to school, too.

-parent of a middle-school kid and a high-school kid