How are PK3-4 parents feeling about distance learning?

[Anonymous]

For PK, DCPS and any charter should let you opt out of any distance learning if your child is being cared for by someone else. Per OSSE's attendance guidelines, PK attendance is not mandatory.

I opted out of PK distance learning this spring at our language charter because I put my kid in daycare. All I had to was send the school a letter from the daycare confirming she went there. The school asked for that in case OSSE came knocking.

Per OSSE guidelines, attendance in K is mandatory, so it may be a different story, but I heard that OSSE may relax that rule this year, and they should. I plan to continue to send my kid to daycare this year (her K year) and opt of distance learning. If our charter or OSSE gives me a hard time, I will fight it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What am I doing? Going to stay in the country where DH and the kids have dual citizenship. Schools have reopened there bc they have a functioning central government. Just about ready to sell our house and make it permanent too.

I'm envious!

We would be doing the same except I, as an American, am not allowed to enter the country where DH and kids are dual citizens.

Cuba is the only place US persons can't go--a shame, too, as they have a good healthcare system. Though even there you are allowed to visit a close relative (31 CFR 515.561). (This is the anonymous forum for sanctions advice, right )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, our kid is a rising PK4 at his IB school. PK3 distance learning was ... well it depended on the kid whether it was worthwhile or not. Some kids were mini-bosses in their parent's work station, answering questions and listening and such. My kid got overexcited and ran around giggling hysterically and shouting potty language. So, we missed a lot of the video sessions. But we did a few, and the school sent home some worksheets which my kid really liked doing (surprisingly), and some activity ideas. We'll be doing PK4 that way too. I can't imagine there would be any adverse consequences from the school to not participating in the distance portion of the plan at this age. Granted, the benefits may be less for a kid who is starting PK3 and doesn't already have a connection to the teacher and know the songs and routines, but I'd imagine the teachers are coming up with some plan to address that. I mean, distance learning is not great, but it's better than nothing in my book, and the kids are young and resilient so I'm choosing not to worry. Now, if parents need childcare, I can see skipping PK for daycare. We will be hoping our nanny can supervise DL as much as possible, but maybe that means getting a tablet or something so DS doesn't need to jump on my work computer. Like everything else these days, we'll make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in Prek3 this year with our middle one (our oldest a rising K). We are going to do enough to keep our spot, but I am not doing any real learning. Our oldest was not in a PreK program and left K reading at a 3rd grade level, so I am not at all worried about this.

Rising First Grader. Point is PreK3 and PreK4 are unneessary.

It may be unnecessary for some, but it is really important for other kids. Not all kids are advanced or have a home environment that provides what they need to be reading at a 3rd grade level by the end of K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

If there are in-person days, my kid will attend. So yes, we would be keeping the spot and opting out of the distance learning days.

If there are no in-person days, I think we should still get to keep the spot, even if we opt out of all distance learning. The teacher gets to focus on distance-teaching one fewer student. That's better for the teacher (smaller class size) and for the other kids participating in distance learning. One could argue that we're taking a spot from a new student, but our school has accepted I think ONE kid at K each year the past several years. And the kids who join at K may have none of the target language, while my kid does. So yes, I think we should get to keep the spot. We will keep supporting the target language at home and return to school when they have in-person days. Distance learning is not a developmentally appropriate substitute for in-person learning for a 5-year-old. The school is not missing out on the chance to distance-teach a 5-year old 5 days a week because that isn't "serving" the 5-year-old or the parent(s) if there are no in-person days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, our kid is a rising PK4 at his IB school. PK3 distance learning was ... well it depended on the kid whether it was worthwhile or not. Some kids were mini-bosses in their parent's work station, answering questions and listening and such. My kid got overexcited and ran around giggling hysterically and shouting potty language. So, we missed a lot of the video sessions. But we did a few, and the school sent home some worksheets which my kid really liked doing (surprisingly), and some activity ideas. We'll be doing PK4 that way too. I can't imagine there would be any adverse consequences from the school to not participating in the distance portion of the plan at this age. Granted, the benefits may be less for a kid who is starting PK3 and doesn't already have a connection to the teacher and know the songs and routines, but I'd imagine the teachers are coming up with some plan to address that. I mean, distance learning is not great, but it's better than nothing in my book, and the kids are young and resilient so I'm choosing not to worry. Now, if parents need childcare, I can see skipping PK for daycare. We will be hoping our nanny can supervise DL as much as possible, but maybe that means getting a tablet or something so DS doesn't need to jump on my work computer. Like everything else these days, we'll make it work.

NP. Hah! Thanks for sharing your experience. We have a rising PK3 student so we’re interested to see how this experiment goes. Good thing our kid has had a LOT of practice watching screens these past few months! Hopefully that will make the Zoom classes easier.

[Anonymous]

Just curious what folks think about the prospect of some kids falling behind their peers and possibly needing to be red-shirted at some point? A lot of course depends on how much learning they’re doing at home on their own, but I wonder how this would affect students next year to have peers in their class who need a lot more support and foundational education because they missed out on it this year. I worry it will slow down the pace of learning for the class as teachers help kids play catch-up on what they missed. Anyone else wondering about these kinds of longer-term effects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what folks think about the prospect of some kids falling behind their peers and possibly needing to be red-shirted at some point? A lot of course depends on how much learning they’re doing at home on their own, but I wonder how this would affect students next year to have peers in their class who need a lot more support and foundational education because they missed out on it this year. I worry it will slow down the pace of learning for the class as teachers help kids play catch-up on what they missed. Anyone else wondering about these kinds of longer-term effects?

It’s PreK. It’s not required. Please relax about the academics. These children are 3&4. It’s gonna be all right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

If there are in-person days, my kid will attend. So yes, we would be keeping the spot and opting out of the distance learning days.

If there are no in-person days, I think we should still get to keep the spot, even if we opt out of all distance learning. The teacher gets to focus on distance-teaching one fewer student. That's better for the teacher (smaller class size) and for the other kids participating in distance learning. One could argue that we're taking a spot from a new student, but our school has accepted I think ONE kid at K each year the past several years. And the kids who join at K may have none of the target language, while my kid does. So yes, I think we should get to keep the spot. We will keep supporting the target language at home and return to school when they have in-person days. Distance learning is not a developmentally appropriate substitute for in-person learning for a 5-year-old. The school is not missing out on the chance to distance-teach a 5-year old 5 days a week because that isn't "serving" the 5-year-old or the parent(s) if there are no in-person days.

NP here. I think the main point is whether it's fair to hold a highly competitive charter spot when you are not actually going to the school (in-person or DL). There are dozens or hundreds of other families that WOULD participate in distance learning and would continue to be engaged with the school for the year or more while your children are attending a different school/daycare. It seems objectively reasonable that families either attend the school or choose to disenroll and give up their spot. You can always play the lottery again or enroll at your in-bounds. Wanting to hold onto your seat while sending your child to another school is asking to have your cake and eat it to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

If there are in-person days, my kid will attend. So yes, we would be keeping the spot and opting out of the distance learning days.

If there are no in-person days, I think we should still get to keep the spot, even if we opt out of all distance learning. The teacher gets to focus on distance-teaching one fewer student. That's better for the teacher (smaller class size) and for the other kids participating in distance learning. One could argue that we're taking a spot from a new student, but our school has accepted I think ONE kid at K each year the past several years. And the kids who join at K may have none of the target language, while my kid does. So yes, I think we should get to keep the spot. We will keep supporting the target language at home and return to school when they have in-person days. Distance learning is not a developmentally appropriate substitute for in-person learning for a 5-year-old. The school is not missing out on the chance to distance-teach a 5-year old 5 days a week because that isn't "serving" the 5-year-old or the parent(s) if there are no in-person days.

NP here. I think the main point is whether it's fair to hold a highly competitive charter spot when you are not actually going to the school (in-person or DL). There are dozens or hundreds of other families that WOULD participate in distance learning and would continue to be engaged with the school for the year or more while your children are attending a different school/daycare. It seems objectively reasonable that families either attend the school or choose to disenroll and give up their spot. You can always play the lottery again or enroll at your in-bounds. Wanting to hold onto your seat while sending your child to another school is asking to have your cake and eat it to.

I disagree. And that interpretation disproportionately impacts essential workers, people who cannot afford hire help to supervise distance learning, people who cannot successfully manage distance learning at home for a variety of reasons. Arguing that people "just need to participate in distance learning" or lose their spot at a charter school comes from a place of privilege.

My kid does not go to private school. I am not choosing to send her to private school/day care instead of participating in distance learning. She goes to a subsidized center set up for kids of essential workers. I shouldn't be punished for accepting that service that is offered to me to enable me to go to work. Please examine how your interpretation affects everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising PK3-- I'm not feeling good about DL at all- it's basically impossible for that age to keep their attention for longer than 10-20 minutes on a zoom call. If they do anything, it should be 2 days in person 3 days off so we don't have to pretend to log-in to DL 3 days a week.

I also hope they make an accommodation so that families who want to keep their kid home or get some other full-time care (nanny, preschool actually in session etc.) can do that without losing their spot and are guaranteed a spot at that school for PK4 the following year (if we're through this by then, which at this rate...who knows!)

If a family is getting a nanny or a parent at home you should be able to do the 20-45 minutes per day of writing practice, readalouds, art projects, weekly class meetings, etc rather than ask a school to not serve you and possibly lose out on their per pupil funding when they need all the resources they can get.

This. We have no idea how much DL we will do with our PK3 child this fall, but we definitely enrolled and will stay enrolled simply because we don't want to negatively impact the school by withdrawing.

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

If there are in-person days, my kid will attend. So yes, we would be keeping the spot and opting out of the distance learning days.

If there are no in-person days, I think we should still get to keep the spot, even if we opt out of all distance learning. The teacher gets to focus on distance-teaching one fewer student. That's better for the teacher (smaller class size) and for the other kids participating in distance learning. One could argue that we're taking a spot from a new student, but our school has accepted I think ONE kid at K each year the past several years. And the kids who join at K may have none of the target language, while my kid does. So yes, I think we should get to keep the spot. We will keep supporting the target language at home and return to school when they have in-person days. Distance learning is not a developmentally appropriate substitute for in-person learning for a 5-year-old. The school is not missing out on the chance to distance-teach a 5-year old 5 days a week because that isn't "serving" the 5-year-old or the parent(s) if there are no in-person days.

NP here. I think the main point is whether it's fair to hold a highly competitive charter spot when you are not actually going to the school (in-person or DL). There are dozens or hundreds of other families that WOULD participate in distance learning and would continue to be engaged with the school for the year or more while your children are attending a different school/daycare. It seems objectively reasonable that families either attend the school or choose to disenroll and give up their spot. You can always play the lottery again or enroll at your in-bounds. Wanting to hold onto your seat while sending your child to another school is asking to have your cake and eat it to.

I disagree. And that interpretation disproportionately impacts essential workers, people who cannot afford hire help to supervise distance learning, people who cannot successfully manage distance learning at home for a variety of reasons. Arguing that people "just need to participate in distance learning" or lose their spot at a charter school comes from a place of privilege.

My kid does not go to private school. I am not choosing to send her to private school/day care instead of participating in distance learning. She goes to a subsidized center set up for kids of essential workers. I shouldn't be punished for accepting that service that is offered to me to enable me to go to work. Please examine how your interpretation affects everyone.

I'm the person who wrote the original post in this thread. I was talking about my in-bound which lets in most but not all in-bound students. I agree that if you are at a highly competitive charter it might be a bit different. Either way, we are planning to enroll, I just hope that if my DC doesn't want to do DL (but does do the in-person days) it's not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: disagree. And that interpretation disproportionately impacts essential workers, people who cannot afford hire help to supervise distance learning, people who cannot successfully manage distance learning at home for a variety of reasons. Arguing that people "just need to participate in distance learning" or lose their spot at a charter school comes from a place of privilege.

My kid does not go to private school. I am not choosing to send her to private school/day care instead of participating in distance learning. She goes to a subsidized center set up for kids of essential workers. I shouldn't be punished for accepting that service that is offered to me to enable me to go to work. Please examine how your interpretation affects everyone.

This does not make sense to me. How would mandatory school aged children (K and up) be able to opt out of distance learning? Assuming we're talking about more than just pre-k, those subsidized centers will have to provide more than child care once the school year starts. Either they'll be limited only to pre-k and younger children, or they'll support the individual school's DL, or they'll provide a standardized DL curriculum for each grade. Either way, an elementary aged child HAS to participate in distance learning and the family or the city needs to figure out how to support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really don't like the idea that a parent could choose to send their kid to an in-person daycare for this year but retain their spot in a school program because of the pandemic. It would be different if a family opted out of in-person because of concerns about health and safety, but if they are willing to send their kid to in-person care elsewhere (so obviously not that concerned about health/safety), I think they should give up their spot to another family who cannot afford private care. Come on.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm an essential worker. My kid has been going to daycare since April. The daycare is extremely careful (temperature checks, masks, lots of outdoor time). It's been 3 months, and there have been absolutely no issues. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that people who send their kid to places like this and would consider also sending their kid to any in-person days don't care about health and safety. I'd argue that my kid going to this daycare is probably safer than many other arrangements other families will make for distance learning days (hiring a nanny, whose off-hour movements you can't know or control; creating a pod with kids who are in other classes; having older and thus at-risk grandparents step in).

Your opinion comes from a place of privilege and no evidence.

I don't think anyone can make assumptions about other people's commitment to safety or concerns, especially since some people don't have a choice about having to go back to work outside the house. But I think the question remains: does that mean you get to keep a spot at your school which isn't your in boundary if your kid is at a daycare? If they "keep your spot" can they serve another kid in your place? Would both kids be enrolled when we get back to in person learning? Or, does the school just serve fewer kids because yours is at daycare? Do they still get the per pupil $? lots of questions.

If there are in-person days, my kid will attend. So yes, we would be keeping the spot and opting out of the distance learning days.

If there are no in-person days, I think we should still get to keep the spot, even if we opt out of all distance learning. The teacher gets to focus on distance-teaching one fewer student. That's better for the teacher (smaller class size) and for the other kids participating in distance learning. One could argue that we're taking a spot from a new student, but our school has accepted I think ONE kid at K each year the past several years. And the kids who join at K may have none of the target language, while my kid does. So yes, I think we should get to keep the spot. We will keep supporting the target language at home and return to school when they have in-person days. Distance learning is not a developmentally appropriate substitute for in-person learning for a 5-year-old. The school is not missing out on the chance to distance-teach a 5-year old 5 days a week because that isn't "serving" the 5-year-old or the parent(s) if there are no in-person days.

NP here. I think the main point is whether it's fair to hold a highly competitive charter spot when you are not actually going to the school (in-person or DL). There are dozens or hundreds of other families that WOULD participate in distance learning and would continue to be engaged with the school for the year or more while your children are attending a different school/daycare. It seems objectively reasonable that families either attend the school or choose to disenroll and give up their spot. You can always play the lottery again or enroll at your in-bounds. Wanting to hold onto your seat while sending your child to another school is asking to have your cake and eat it to.

I disagree. And that interpretation disproportionately impacts essential workers, people who cannot afford hire help to supervise distance learning, people who cannot successfully manage distance learning at home for a variety of reasons. Arguing that people "just need to participate in distance learning" or lose their spot at a charter school comes from a place of privilege.

My kid does not go to private school. I am not choosing to send her to private school/day care instead of participating in distance learning. She goes to a subsidized center set up for kids of essential workers. I shouldn't be punished for accepting that service that is offered to me to enable me to go to work. Please examine how your interpretation affects everyone.

This convo is a perfect example of why there need to be clear rules about all of this. I feel for the above poster who is an essential worker and would support rules that addressed the needs of essential workers specifically, ensuring both that their kids get access to education and that they don't lose school spots because their jobs require them to have their kids in full time care. Though it sounds like this specific poster would not have any issue participating in DL (and likely this could be accommodated at their kid's daycare) so I'm not sure this would even apply to them.

But the underlying point is that certain privileged parents (ie not essential workers with limited options, but parents who have the financial means to pay for private preschool) will try to use the Covid crisis to, as one poster aptly put it, have their cake and eat it too. If a parent looks at the public school option presented (whether DL or hybrid) and decided they'd rather pay for private pre-school in order to have more control over the situation, they should have to forgo their spot in the public school system so another child can use it. We're just talking about parents who choose to opt out of public PK programs altogether in favor of a private option, not people who need to supplement DL or in-person days with private care.

It would be offensive if parents who choose private preschool over public school this year could use the pandemic as a reason to keep their public school spot. I can understand why parents who can afford would opt for private school in these circumstances. I just don't think they should be allowed to use up public resources that could be serving another child whose family does not have those options.