APS - Elementary school -who is opting for virtual in 2021/22

[Anonymous]

They need to have the same curriculum at all neighborhood ES. Just look at the dismal report from the English Language Arts cmte earlier this month. They called it a "crisis." Scores have dropped significantly. Get rid of Lucy Calkins and teach evidence-based curriculum and phonics at all elementary schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to have the same curriculum at all neighborhood ES. Just look at the dismal report from the English Language Arts cmte earlier this month. They called it a "crisis." Scores have dropped significantly. Get rid of Lucy Calkins and teach evidence-based curriculum and phonics at all elementary schools!

x1 million

Let’s teach our kids to read and write FFS.

Should be the #1 priority right now for all ESs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to have the same curriculum at all neighborhood ES. Just look at the dismal report from the English Language Arts cmte earlier this month. They called it a "crisis." Scores have dropped significantly. Get rid of Lucy Calkins and teach evidence-based curriculum and phonics at all elementary schools!

x1 million

Let’s teach our kids to read and write FFS.

Should be the #1 priority right now for all ESs.

I don't understand why this isn't getting more airplay. I was dumbfounded when I read the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this fro a PP...

“What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.”

I’m not even half as involved as this woman and I could tell you why Reed suddenly needs more buses.

By the way, the bus and cost implications of the Reed boundary were pointed out to APS repeatedly and also the traffic nightmare they created and it was more important to not upset anyone during a pandemic.

This is why I won't vote for Mary. She prioritized one school over what is better for the system as a whole.

Assuming for the sake of argument that’s what she did, she was PTA for one school at that time. That was kind of her role to advocate for that school. That does not mean she won’t be looking out for all schools as a SB member. This is just silly.

This came up on another thread so interesting to see it come up again. I think it's interesting to see people assert that it's perfectly normal for a PTA president to advocate for something they know is not for the greater good. Because that's their job. If that's what we're all saying is appropriate and normal, PTAs should not be allowed to have such a large voice and sway in the boundary processes.

And we're supposed to now take on face value that really in REAL LIFE she can represent all schools. It was just this other job where she argued in the self-interest of a portion of the student body.

Some of the concern about MK is also about how she went about it. When our elementary school was on the chopping block in the prior round, our PTA advocated strongly for APS to find a different solution. In doing so, though, there was an explicit decision made by the PTA that it would not throw any other schools under the bus. Instead, the arguments would be based on the merits of our school site based on APS's stated criteria, and on additional factors and analysis we felt APS should apply to *all* schools potentially under consideration. There were PTA members who opposed this strategy (and some of them argued in their individual capacity that other specific schools should be considered when the PTA refused to do it), but the board held firm that they would not go after any other school communities.

MK did the opposite. She and her PTA board identified a couple of schools that she directly and openly argued should be turned into option schools. From what I understand, the PTA at one of those schools (not the one my children attend) had been considering making a public statement of support for McKinley remaining a neighborhood school for a whole host of reasons, but then decided not to after Kadera started arguing for their own school to become the option site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to have the same curriculum at all neighborhood ES. Just look at the dismal report from the English Language Arts cmte earlier this month. They called it a "crisis." Scores have dropped significantly. Get rid of Lucy Calkins and teach evidence-based curriculum and phonics at all elementary schools!

x1 million

Let’s teach our kids to read and write FFS.

Should be the #1 priority right now for all ESs.

I don't understand why this isn't getting more airplay. I was dumbfounded when I read the report.

Seriously.

If Miranda or Mary want to win they should be pushing hard on LITERACY. Enough of this dumb RTS debate - kids are in school and back 5-days in the fall.

We need a comprehensive plan on literacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this fro a PP...

“What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.”

I’m not even half as involved as this woman and I could tell you why Reed suddenly needs more buses.

By the way, the bus and cost implications of the Reed boundary were pointed out to APS repeatedly and also the traffic nightmare they created and it was more important to not upset anyone during a pandemic.

This is why I won't vote for Mary. She prioritized one school over what is better for the system as a whole.

Assuming for the sake of argument that’s what she did, she was PTA for one school at that time. That was kind of her role to advocate for that school. That does not mean she won’t be looking out for all schools as a SB member. This is just silly.

This came up on another thread so interesting to see it come up again. I think it's interesting to see people assert that it's perfectly normal for a PTA president to advocate for something they know is not for the greater good. Because that's their job. If that's what we're all saying is appropriate and normal, PTAs should not be allowed to have such a large voice and sway in the boundary processes.

And we're supposed to now take on face value that really in REAL LIFE she can represent all schools. It was just this other job where she argued in the self-interest of a portion of the student body

The anti-Kadera people have not read the 6th grade math word problem that was worked out earlier around page 11 which shows that she actually was basically right to question APS's representations re busing costs that were given by APS as justification for moving McKinley. APS told McKinley that it was the best choice to move because only 28% of its kids were walkable whereas 60% of Reed's kids would be walkable. That means that APS represented it would have about 420 out of 700 kids at Reed be walkable, whereas it said McKinley only had about 224 out of 800 kids be walkable. Even if you add what turned out to be ONLY 40 KIDS FROM TUCKAHOE that ultimately would bus to tuckahoe instead of walk to Reed that people are complaining about -- even if you add that back in to the Reed total that still gives you 380 walkable kids at Reed and 320 bused kids at Reed, whereas McKinley had ~ 224 walkable kids and 586 bused kids. McKinley's supposed old 586 bused kids is so much more of a busing budget than Reed's supposed new 320 bused kids - why then should Reed require, in addition to the old McKinley budget which included the money for those 586 kids, ALSO an extra $380K for additional busing costs at Reed? Nobody besides those Tuckahoe kids who were walkable ultimately got moved out of Reed, so those numbers shouldn't be off by that much if APS's original representations were right that Reed was very very walkable and McKinley wasn't, whoever Kadera argued for re the Reed move.

Kadera's point is not really wrong in questioning the validity of the school board's representations to McKinley in the first place, even if you account for that small number of Tuckahoe kids, and even if you add in some "frictional costs" as some earlier PP described. It seems like there is something funky going on and it's not Kadera.

[Anonymous]

My whole family is vaccinated but DD is still going to do virtual. Her mental health and grades have improved with DL, and since APS is overloaded with IPL, we opted for DL next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have had virtual since DD is asthmatc, but are opting for in-person next year, since she is constantly facing frustration with poor virtual teaching. However, our concerns are:

1) With some teachers opting for the virtual academy, there will be fewer teachers in-person, so in-person class size will be bigger. That means more crowded, with 3ft distancing vs 6ft. If schools have a problem opening windows, isn't there a higher risk of outbreak with poor ventilation, should someone be infected in class?

2) Flu season in the fall/winter months - without 6-ft distancing, and again, closed windows - would that be a double-whammy?

3) This would be the first time that APS is allowing 5-day in-person learning when the pandemic is still raging on, and children's vaccines are far from being available. While masks may lower the risk of infection, how many kids really abide mask-wearing throughout the day? I assume APS is reverting to the pre-pandemic class schedule.

1) the virtual academy will be staffed by application and interview like any school in APS determined by the school enrollment. Class size across APS will. Ot change but will adapt to the enrollment numbers.
2) I believe that until a children’s vaccine is available masking will still be required and APS is planning a model with 3ft and 0ft distancing dependent on recommendations in the fall.
3) Teachers and admin are definitely requiring and enforcing mask use. I’m an APS teacher in elementary and also a parent and I have not had any issues with my students wearing their masks nor have my own children who attend elementary, middle, and high schools reported any masking non-compliance.

now that we know 3ft is not possible what's the plan ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-Kadera people have not read the 6th grade math word problem that was worked out earlier around page 11 which shows that she actually was basically right to question APS's representations re busing costs that were given by APS as justification for moving McKinley. APS told McKinley that it was the best choice to move because only 28% of its kids were walkable whereas 60% of Reed's kids would be walkable. That means that APS represented it would have about 420 out of 700 kids at Reed be walkable, whereas it said McKinley only had about 224 out of 800 kids be walkable. Even if you add what turned out to be ONLY 40 KIDS FROM TUCKAHOE that ultimately would bus to tuckahoe instead of walk to Reed that people are complaining about -- even if you add that back in to the Reed total that still gives you 380 walkable kids at Reed and 320 bused kids at Reed, whereas McKinley had ~ 224 walkable kids and 586 bused kids. McKinley's supposed old 586 bused kids is so much more of a busing budget than Reed's supposed new 320 bused kids - why then should Reed require, in addition to the old McKinley budget which included the money for those 586 kids, ALSO an extra $380K for additional busing costs at Reed? Nobody besides those Tuckahoe kids who were walkable ultimately got moved out of Reed, so those numbers shouldn't be off by that much if APS's original representations were right that Reed was very very walkable and McKinley wasn't, whoever Kadera argued for re the Reed move.

Kadera's point is not really wrong in questioning the validity of the school board's representations to McKinley in the first place, even if you account for that small number of Tuckahoe kids, and even if you add in some "frictional costs" as some earlier PP described. It seems like there is something funky going on and it's not Kadera.

I don't think you fully understood that discussion.

[Anonymous]

I understand that another poster suggested Kadera's estimate was off by a few $K and the additional money Reed required would "only" be about $370K, and that PP's total speculation that that amount included all the frictional costs for extra buses all over the county due to another school. I don't understand where PP would pull that assumption from and find it to be wrong (at a minimum, the new Innovation Elementary school (new neighborhood school at Fleet) is going live around the same time as Reed, so what is happening to its busing costs? PP seems to be saying all frictional costs would be absorbed wholly by Reed and that's where that entire discrepancy comes from -- the $374K plus the additional busing overbudget from McKinley. But there's no real basis to believe this, it's just PP's theory, and moreover it doesn't make sense when there's another elementary school coming online at the same time that would also be a source for those frictional costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that another poster suggested Kadera's estimate was off by a few $K and the additional money Reed required would "only" be about $370K, and that PP's total speculation that that amount included all the frictional costs for extra buses all over the county due to another school. I don't understand where PP would pull that assumption from and find it to be wrong (at a minimum, the new Innovation Elementary school (new neighborhood school at Fleet) is going live around the same time as Reed, so what is happening to its busing costs? PP seems to be saying all frictional costs would be absorbed wholly by Reed and that's where that entire discrepancy comes from -- the $374K plus the additional busing overbudget from McKinley. But there's no real basis to believe this, it's just PP's theory, and moreover it doesn't make sense when there's another elementary school coming online at the same time that would also be a source for those frictional costs.

Fleet opened in fall 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that another poster suggested Kadera's estimate was off by a few $K and the additional money Reed required would "only" be about $370K, and that PP's total speculation that that amount included all the frictional costs for extra buses all over the county due to another school. I don't understand where PP would pull that assumption from and find it to be wrong (at a minimum, the new Innovation Elementary school (new neighborhood school at Fleet) is going live around the same time as Reed, so what is happening to its busing costs? PP seems to be saying all frictional costs would be absorbed wholly by Reed and that's where that entire discrepancy comes from -- the $374K plus the additional busing overbudget from McKinley. But there's no real basis to believe this, it's just PP's theory, and moreover it doesn't make sense when there's another elementary school coming online at the same time that would also be a source for those frictional costs.

Fleet opened in fall 2019.

And in anticipation, APS budgeted that year for six additional drivers and attendants at a cost of $270k for the additional bus routes that would be necessary due to the redrawing of boundaries for Fleet and surrounding schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to have the same curriculum at all neighborhood ES. Just look at the dismal report from the English Language Arts cmte earlier this month. They called it a "crisis." Scores have dropped significantly. Get rid of Lucy Calkins and teach evidence-based curriculum and phonics at all elementary schools!

x1 million

Let’s teach our kids to read and write FFS.

Should be the #1 priority right now for all ESs.

I don't understand why this isn't getting more airplay. I was dumbfounded when I read the report.

Seriously.

If Miranda or Mary want to win they should be pushing hard on LITERACY. Enough of this dumb RTS debate - kids are in school and back 5-days in the fall.

We need a comprehensive plan on literacy.

X1,000,000. Couldn't agree with this more. Literacy has been SEVERELY lacking for years. I didn't realize how bad it was until we pulled our at grade level/slightly below grade level kid and found out how massively behind he truly was.

They need to focus on phonics. My kid was caught in the years when they just didn't teach it. I believe they are starting to teach this again but they need an intensive focus on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this fro a PP...

“What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.”

I’m not even half as involved as this woman and I could tell you why Reed suddenly needs more buses.

By the way, the bus and cost implications of the Reed boundary were pointed out to APS repeatedly and also the traffic nightmare they created and it was more important to not upset anyone during a pandemic.

This is why I won't vote for Mary. She prioritized one school over what is better for the system as a whole.

Assuming for the sake of argument that’s what she did, she was PTA for one school at that time. That was kind of her role to advocate for that school. That does not mean she won’t be looking out for all schools as a SB member. This is just silly.

This came up on another thread so interesting to see it come up again. I think it's interesting to see people assert that it's perfectly normal for a PTA president to advocate for something they know is not for the greater good. Because that's their job. If that's what we're all saying is appropriate and normal, PTAs should not be allowed to have such a large voice and sway in the boundary processes.

And we're supposed to now take on face value that really in REAL LIFE she can represent all schools. It was just this other job where she argued in the self-interest of a portion of the student body.

Miranda is advocating for one group APE right now as a candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have had virtual since DD is asthmatc, but are opting for in-person next year, since she is constantly facing frustration with poor virtual teaching. However, our concerns are:

1) With some teachers opting for the virtual academy, there will be fewer teachers in-person, so in-person class size will be bigger. That means more crowded, with 3ft distancing vs 6ft. If schools have a problem opening windows, isn't there a higher risk of outbreak with poor ventilation, should someone be infected in class?

2) Flu season in the fall/winter months - without 6-ft distancing, and again, closed windows - would that be a double-whammy?

3) This would be the first time that APS is allowing 5-day in-person learning when the pandemic is still raging on, and children's vaccines are far from being available. While masks may lower the risk of infection, how many kids really abide mask-wearing throughout the day? I assume APS is reverting to the pre-pandemic class schedule.

1) the virtual academy will be staffed by application and interview like any school in APS determined by the school enrollment. Class size across APS will. Ot change but will adapt to the enrollment numbers.
2) I believe that until a children’s vaccine is available masking will still be required and APS is planning a model with 3ft and 0ft distancing dependent on recommendations in the fall.
3) Teachers and admin are definitely requiring and enforcing mask use. I’m an APS teacher in elementary and also a parent and I have not had any issues with my students wearing their masks nor have my own children who attend elementary, middle, and high schools reported any masking non-compliance.

now that we know 3ft is not possible what's the plan ?

The plan is no distancing.