Fairfax has a plan. Interesting preview of what might come to MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decide by July 10??

What if you change your mind after?

Can’t expect parents to decide until at least August, IMO to see what the stats look like.

They can't require kids to come in during a pandemic. My gut says that if you pick hybrid and then have to switch to dl, they have to accommodate you. Right?

OP here, and MCPS parent.

The PowerPoint explicitly sets up the 100% online option as the fallback that the whole school would go into should the epidemic become critical in the area. So there is that.

I also got the impression from the PowerPoint that committing to the Distance Learning option was a full year commitment. It didn't explicitly say the same for choosing the 2 day in person 2 day online option. I don't have any idea what FCPS parents are actually seeing, however. I would hazard a guess that they would accept a change toward 100% DL at least in extenuating circumstances. Seriously, if any county in 2020-21 experiences the sorts of upticks that FL/TX/AZ have in the last couple weeks, there will be a flood of requests to go 100% online and then any school district will likely take the whole system 100% online for some period of time.



Some people have questioned why only 2 days a week. It is pretty clear in the PowerPoint that the choice to go 2 days a week instead of 4 is purely for social distancing purposes. (The schools are simply not "empty enough" to accommodate social distancing unless about half the students are missing.) They say that depending on how many choose to go 100% online, they may add additional in-person days to the week.

I can only imagine that means if, say half the population were to choose 100% online, the other half could maybe be in school 4 days a week. This would be even more feasible if a significant number who are attending in person will not be riding the buses.



Clearly, FCPS can't tell parents exactly what things are going to look like (which classes/programs will be available) until they know how many students will opt for 100% online. But how are parents supposed to make the decision when so much is still in the air?

I thought is was 2 days in school and 3 days independent work (not days in school and 2 days DL). I also thought that one group would come in tuesday and wednesday and one group thursday and friday. So they wouldn't be able to add days to the kids going to school (because kids would be there four days already).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decide by July 10??

What if you change your mind after?

Can’t expect parents to decide until at least August, IMO to see what the stats look like.

They can't require kids to come in during a pandemic. My gut says that if you pick hybrid and then have to switch to dl, they have to accommodate you. Right?

OP here, and MCPS parent.

The PowerPoint explicitly sets up the 100% online option as the fallback that the whole school would go into should the epidemic become critical in the area. So there is that.

I also got the impression from the PowerPoint that committing to the Distance Learning option was a full year commitment. It didn't explicitly say the same for choosing the 2 day in person 2 day online option. I don't have any idea what FCPS parents are actually seeing, however. I would hazard a guess that they would accept a change toward 100% DL at least in extenuating circumstances. Seriously, if any county in 2020-21 experiences the sorts of upticks that FL/TX/AZ have in the last couple weeks, there will be a flood of requests to go 100% online and then any school district will likely take the whole system 100% online for some period of time.



Some people have questioned why only 2 days a week. It is pretty clear in the PowerPoint that the choice to go 2 days a week instead of 4 is purely for social distancing purposes. (The schools are simply not "empty enough" to accommodate social distancing unless about half the students are missing.) They say that depending on how many choose to go 100% online, they may add additional in-person days to the week.

I can only imagine that means if, say half the population were to choose 100% online, the other half could maybe be in school 4 days a week. This would be even more feasible if a significant number who are attending in person will not be riding the buses.



Clearly, FCPS can't tell parents exactly what things are going to look like (which classes/programs will be available) until they know how many students will opt for 100% online. But how are parents supposed to make the decision when so much is still in the air?

I thought is was 2 days in school and 3 days independent work (not days in school and 2 days DL). I also thought that one group would come in tuesday and wednesday and one group thursday and friday. So they wouldn't be able to add days to the kids going to school (because kids would be there four days already).

You are right, 2 days in school, 3 online. I was just being sloppy on that.

If they add days, it will be because they don't have to have 2 groups (because enough people choose 100% online). This was what I got from their discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decide by July 10??

What if you change your mind after?

Can’t expect parents to decide until at least August, IMO to see what the stats look like.

They can't require kids to come in during a pandemic. My gut says that if you pick hybrid and then have to switch to dl, they have to accommodate you. Right?

OP here, and MCPS parent.

The PowerPoint explicitly sets up the 100% online option as the fallback that the whole school would go into should the epidemic become critical in the area. So there is that.

I also got the impression from the PowerPoint that committing to the Distance Learning option was a full year commitment. It didn't explicitly say the same for choosing the 2 day in person 2 day online option. I don't have any idea what FCPS parents are actually seeing, however. I would hazard a guess that they would accept a change toward 100% DL at least in extenuating circumstances. Seriously, if any county in 2020-21 experiences the sorts of upticks that FL/TX/AZ have in the last couple weeks, there will be a flood of requests to go 100% online and then any school district will likely take the whole system 100% online for some period of time.



Some people have questioned why only 2 days a week. It is pretty clear in the PowerPoint that the choice to go 2 days a week instead of 4 is purely for social distancing purposes. (The schools are simply not "empty enough" to accommodate social distancing unless about half the students are missing.) They say that depending on how many choose to go 100% online, they may add additional in-person days to the week.

I can only imagine that means if, say half the population were to choose 100% online, the other half could maybe be in school 4 days a week. This would be even more feasible if a significant number who are attending in person will not be riding the buses.



Clearly, FCPS can't tell parents exactly what things are going to look like (which classes/programs will be available) until they know how many students will opt for 100% online. But how are parents supposed to make the decision when so much is still in the air?

That's why I think if you're not sure, you should pick hybrid. If it doesn't end up seeming like a good idea, I don't see how they could deny you DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decide by July 10??

What if you change your mind after?

Can’t expect parents to decide until at least August, IMO to see what the stats look like.

They can't require kids to come in during a pandemic. My gut says that if you pick hybrid and then have to switch to dl, they have to accommodate you. Right?

OP here, and MCPS parent.

The PowerPoint explicitly sets up the 100% online option as the fallback that the whole school would go into should the epidemic become critical in the area. So there is that.

I also got the impression from the PowerPoint that committing to the Distance Learning option was a full year commitment. It didn't explicitly say the same for choosing the 2 day in person 2 day online option. I don't have any idea what FCPS parents are actually seeing, however. I would hazard a guess that they would accept a change toward 100% DL at least in extenuating circumstances. Seriously, if any county in 2020-21 experiences the sorts of upticks that FL/TX/AZ have in the last couple weeks, there will be a flood of requests to go 100% online and then any school district will likely take the whole system 100% online for some period of time.



Some people have questioned why only 2 days a week. It is pretty clear in the PowerPoint that the choice to go 2 days a week instead of 4 is purely for social distancing purposes. (The schools are simply not "empty enough" to accommodate social distancing unless about half the students are missing.) They say that depending on how many choose to go 100% online, they may add additional in-person days to the week.

I can only imagine that means if, say half the population were to choose 100% online, the other half could maybe be in school 4 days a week. This would be even more feasible if a significant number who are attending in person will not be riding the buses.



Clearly, FCPS can't tell parents exactly what things are going to look like (which classes/programs will be available) until they know how many students will opt for 100% online. But how are parents supposed to make the decision when so much is still in the air?

I thought is was 2 days in school and 3 days independent work (not days in school and 2 days DL). I also thought that one group would come in tuesday and wednesday and one group thursday and friday. So they wouldn't be able to add days to the kids going to school (because kids would be there four days already).

You are right, 2 days in school, 3 online. I was just being sloppy on that.

If they add days, it will be because they don't have to have 2 groups (because enough people choose 100% online). This was what I got from their discussion.

I mean I thought it was 2 days at school and no teaching online. The kids would work independently. Or did you hear they would have distance learning on those other days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decide by July 10??

What if you change your mind after?

Can’t expect parents to decide until at least August, IMO to see what the stats look like.

They can't require kids to come in during a pandemic. My gut says that if you pick hybrid and then have to switch to dl, they have to accommodate you. Right?

OP here, and MCPS parent.

The PowerPoint explicitly sets up the 100% online option as the fallback that the whole school would go into should the epidemic become critical in the area. So there is that.

I also got the impression from the PowerPoint that committing to the Distance Learning option was a full year commitment. It didn't explicitly say the same for choosing the 2 day in person 2 day online option. I don't have any idea what FCPS parents are actually seeing, however. I would hazard a guess that they would accept a change toward 100% DL at least in extenuating circumstances. Seriously, if any county in 2020-21 experiences the sorts of upticks that FL/TX/AZ have in the last couple weeks, there will be a flood of requests to go 100% online and then any school district will likely take the whole system 100% online for some period of time.



Some people have questioned why only 2 days a week. It is pretty clear in the PowerPoint that the choice to go 2 days a week instead of 4 is purely for social distancing purposes. (The schools are simply not "empty enough" to accommodate social distancing unless about half the students are missing.) They say that depending on how many choose to go 100% online, they may add additional in-person days to the week.

I can only imagine that means if, say half the population were to choose 100% online, the other half could maybe be in school 4 days a week. This would be even more feasible if a significant number who are attending in person will not be riding the buses.



Clearly, FCPS can't tell parents exactly what things are going to look like (which classes/programs will be available) until they know how many students will opt for 100% online. But how are parents supposed to make the decision when so much is still in the air?

I thought is was 2 days in school and 3 days independent work (not days in school and 2 days DL). I also thought that one group would come in tuesday and wednesday and one group thursday and friday. So they wouldn't be able to add days to the kids going to school (because kids would be there four days already).

You are right, 2 days in school, 3 online. I was just being sloppy on that.

If they add days, it will be because they don't have to have 2 groups (because enough people choose 100% online). This was what I got from their discussion.

I mean I thought it was 2 days at school and no teaching online. The kids would work independently. Or did you hear they would have distance learning on those other days?

OP here

Yeah, definitely says 2 of those off days will be online/asynchronous learning and the third will be an intervention block for selected students and teacher planning.(page 36 in the power point)

[Anonymous]

This'll make it interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-in-fairfax-revolt-against-fall-plans-refusing-to-teach-in-person/2020/06/26/84f52012-b7aa-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html

[Anonymous]

“ Kimberly Adams, president of the Fairfax Education Association, said her organization’s view is that no teacher should return to work until a vaccine or treatment for the coronavirus becomes widely available. She said all school staffers must be allowed to teach virtually for as long as they feel is necessary.”

Wow. Hope a vaccine doesn’t take years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This'll make it interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-in-fairfax-revolt-against-fall-plans-refusing-to-teach-in-person/2020/06/26/84f52012-b7aa-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Of course teachers don't want to go back. They are living their best life right now with this virtual crap. They have no incentive to go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Kimberly Adams, president of the Fairfax Education Association, said her organization’s view is that no teacher should return to work until a vaccine or treatment for the coronavirus becomes widely available. She said all school staffers must be allowed to teach virtually for as long as they feel is necessary.”

Wow. Hope a vaccine doesn’t take years.

What are her criteria for a widely available treatment? The dexamethasone data are really promising, and it's cheap and abundant.

I think waiting for a vaccine is dereliction of duty, given how long it could take. Or, they can take a substantial pay cut to really augment services for the kids who don't/can't learn well remotely. Continued full pay for the disaster that was the past Spring is, IMO, unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS just sent out the parental survey on Sunday. They are behind, as usual.

The topic will be discussed at the 7/14 board of ed meeting, including their preliminary plan. Tune in to that for sure.

They're not behind if they come up with a plan that makes most people happy by the start of school, PP.

FCPS has dropped the ball massively. I don't want their plan. Hopefully MCPS will have more time to think and prepare something better!

+1 I know that "grass is greener" is a strong tendency on this board, but FCPS did not handle the initial DL particularly well and there's absolutely no reason to assume they are correct to push a plan this early, as opposed to waiting and seeing how things shake out.

[Anonymous]

why is a cashier at walmart considered essential and a teacher isn't? Teachers need to return to school. They can wear protective shields and maintain distance while teaching in a lecture format. They can wash their hands after each class and use sanitizer throughout the day. The whole world is returning to work and teachers need to do the same. those who have health issues can be assigned to DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Kimberly Adams, president of the Fairfax Education Association, said her organization’s view is that no teacher should return to work until a vaccine or treatment for the coronavirus becomes widely available. She said all school staffers must be allowed to teach virtually for as long as they feel is necessary.”

Wow. Hope a vaccine doesn’t take years.

What are her criteria for a widely available treatment? The dexamethasone data are really promising, and it's cheap and abundant.

I think waiting for a vaccine is dereliction of duty, given how long it could take. Or, they can take a substantial pay cut to really augment services for the kids who don't/can't learn well remotely. Continued full pay for the disaster that was the past Spring is, IMO, unacceptable.

I'm not a doctor, just parent with a science background, but based on the reports of read on dexamethasone, this is overselling the drug

Dexamethasone seems to cause worse outcomes if it is given early in the course of the disease. It has been shown to reduce mortality in those who are on ventilators (that mortality rate had been very very high, ~40%, and according to the preprint of the the study that came out recently dexamethasone reduces that mortality rate by 1/3). It has also been shown to reduce the mortality on those who are on oxygen by 1/5.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273v1

It's a drug that seems to produce better outcomes for those who have been hospitalized and are having severe lung issues, but telling someone that they should go ahead and take the risk of catching the disease because if they get it and it is a severe enough case to warrant respiratory support they will be somewhat less likely to die....

THAT IS ASKING A LOT OF AN EMPLOYEE!


The medical community is surely getting better at treating COVID-19 and I am super thankful for that, but it is still a dangerous disease that can progress quickly and still be quite deadly. I just don't want people to jump to the conclusion that teachers who don't want to go back to in-person teaching are being selfish and irrational. A significant portion of teachers are in high risk categories.

[Anonymous]

I just heard that my brother's kids' school district in Massachusetts will be open this Fall. All days. I'm honestly kind of shocked. I wonder if there is a list somewhere of what school districts countrywide have decided. It would just be interesting to see as schools make their plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is a cashier at walmart considered essential and a teacher isn't? Teachers need to return to school. They can wear protective shields and maintain distance while teaching in a lecture format. They can wash their hands after each class and use sanitizer throughout the day. The whole world is returning to work and teachers need to do the same. those who have health issues can be assigned to DL.

Hmm, where I am — the DMV area — a majority of people are not returning to work as normal. On Monday the head of my Agency said that we would continue maximum telework for the “foreseeable future.”

Cashiers at Walmart and supermarkets continued to work because they had no other choice. They could work or lose their jobs. The difference here is that even if a majority of cashiers quit, Walmart could still operate, which have Walmart the leverage they needed to require cashiers to keep working in less than optimal conditions.

You can’t say the same of teachers. If they enough teacher resign rather than return to work under current conditions, the school can not open. It is more difficult to replace a large number of teachers between now and September.

I think if Fairfax has provided more information about how the unschool teaching would work, the response would have been different. For instance, in an elementary school, if the class size was reduced from 26 students to 13, the risk to the people in that classroom is reduced. I don’t see how you can have 26 students and a teacher in a classroom where they are 6 feet apart from each other. The rooms are simply not large enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is a cashier at walmart considered essential and a teacher isn't? Teachers need to return to school. They can wear protective shields and maintain distance while teaching in a lecture format. They can wash their hands after each class and use sanitizer throughout the day. The whole world is returning to work and teachers need to do the same. those who have health issues can be assigned to DL.

Cashiers are not in the same small room (with windows that probably don't open) with the same 20+ kids for multiple hours. Kids also aren't so great at keeping their germs to themselves. I know adults aren't always great at it, but they do better at not wiping their boogers on things.

I'm going back to work at a school with a hybrid model, and I feel okay with what my school has planned, but I understand why people would be nervous to go back to a situation where they may get sick. Teachers all know that parents send their kids to school sick - ALL THE TIME- and now that those kids are carrying something we don't have any immunity to, ...