Letter to reopen?

[Anonymous]

Hello! I wish that I could have read your article, but I am not a subscriber. I have been watching the distance learning carefully for my upper elementary schooler, and it seems of very little value. There looks to be less than half an hour of live instruction per day. The rest is either asynchronous or in break-out rooms with other students - the break-out groups are only effective half the time. The teacher has told us essentially that they can't teach writing virtually. The ELA curriculum consists of reading articles online and answering questions (DCPS curriculum). There are also multiple videos to watch that deliver social studies content followed by some specials videos. Half the time when doing the asynchronous work my child is in fact texting or watching unrelated content. I think that two days per week in person would be superior to this, and I think that schools could probably help kids to catch up during that time who need it. That being said some of the kids are miles ahead, and clearly have lots of help at home or have excellent motivation. Going to school two days per week would also be great for socialization, reducing screentime and would help get kids out of the house (sitting indoors for long stretches is sedentary). That being said these trade-offs are probably different for each family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hello! I wish that I could have read your article, but I am not a subscriber. I have been watching the distance learning carefully for my upper elementary schooler, and it seems of very little value. There looks to be less than half an hour of live instruction per day. The rest is either asynchronous or in break-out rooms with other students - the break-out groups are only effective half the time. The teacher has told us essentially that they can't teach writing virtually. The ELA curriculum consists of reading articles online and answering questions (DCPS curriculum). There are also multiple videos to watch that deliver social studies content followed by some specials videos. Half the time when doing the asynchronous work my child is in fact texting or watching unrelated content. I think that two days per week in person would be superior to this, and I think that schools could probably help kids to catch up during that time who need it. That being said some of the kids are miles ahead, and clearly have lots of help at home or have excellent motivation. Going to school two days per week would also be great for socialization, reducing screentime and would help get kids out of the house (sitting indoors for long stretches is sedentary). That being said these trade-offs are probably different for each family.

if you know that's what your kid is doing, what are you doing about it?

But, separate from that, the article outlines the challenges that teachers across the country, primarily those in hybrid solutions which the PP's letter champions, are having trying to do two jobs -- prepare for and deliver in person instruction and prepare for and deliver online instruction. (and that's on top of assessments, grading, fielding inquiries from parents, doing one on one when students need it....) And, the fact that even though students may have limited exposure by being in school in smaller groups, if teachers are seeing all of those smaller groups in a week, that's 2-3x the potential exposure for them. Without a significant surge in teacher hiring, expecting teachers to be able to do all of this is not realistic. and, the suggestion that I've seen about having distance learning in larger groups would be disastrous for many students who are only getting by in DL because of those pockets of time of small groups.

I don't think there are any good, easy solutions to this. But I think that asking teachers to teach two different ways is not the solution that will work for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello! I wish that I could have read your article, but I am not a subscriber. I have been watching the distance learning carefully for my upper elementary schooler, and it seems of very little value. There looks to be less than half an hour of live instruction per day. The rest is either asynchronous or in break-out rooms with other students - the break-out groups are only effective half the time. The teacher has told us essentially that they can't teach writing virtually. The ELA curriculum consists of reading articles online and answering questions (DCPS curriculum). There are also multiple videos to watch that deliver social studies content followed by some specials videos. Half the time when doing the asynchronous work my child is in fact texting or watching unrelated content. I think that two days per week in person would be superior to this, and I think that schools could probably help kids to catch up during that time who need it. That being said some of the kids are miles ahead, and clearly have lots of help at home or have excellent motivation. Going to school two days per week would also be great for socialization, reducing screentime and would help get kids out of the house (sitting indoors for long stretches is sedentary). That being said these trade-offs are probably different for each family.

if you know that's what your kid is doing, what are you doing about it?

But, separate from that, the article outlines the challenges that teachers across the country, primarily those in hybrid solutions which the PP's letter champions, are having trying to do two jobs -- prepare for and deliver in person instruction and prepare for and deliver online instruction. (and that's on top of assessments, grading, fielding inquiries from parents, doing one on one when students need it....) And, the fact that even though students may have limited exposure by being in school in smaller groups, if teachers are seeing all of those smaller groups in a week, that's 2-3x the potential exposure for them. Without a significant surge in teacher hiring, expecting teachers to be able to do all of this is not realistic. and, the suggestion that I've seen about having distance learning in larger groups would be disastrous for many students who are only getting by in DL because of those pockets of time of small groups.

I don't think there are any good, easy solutions to this. But I think that asking teachers to teach two different ways is not the solution that will work for anyone.

Maybe they have to work or are in meetings. And it's interesting that you pulled out the only sentence which might have to do with their parenting and disregard all of the rest of these really egregious problems. I know people in CO who are doing hybrid and it was just another adjustment, like learning to do online. Teachers should be resilient and be able to learn new ways of doing things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello! I wish that I could have read your article, but I am not a subscriber. I have been watching the distance learning carefully for my upper elementary schooler, and it seems of very little value. There looks to be less than half an hour of live instruction per day. The rest is either asynchronous or in break-out rooms with other students - the break-out groups are only effective half the time. The teacher has told us essentially that they can't teach writing virtually. The ELA curriculum consists of reading articles online and answering questions (DCPS curriculum). There are also multiple videos to watch that deliver social studies content followed by some specials videos. Half the time when doing the asynchronous work my child is in fact texting or watching unrelated content. I think that two days per week in person would be superior to this, and I think that schools could probably help kids to catch up during that time who need it. That being said some of the kids are miles ahead, and clearly have lots of help at home or have excellent motivation. Going to school two days per week would also be great for socialization, reducing screentime and would help get kids out of the house (sitting indoors for long stretches is sedentary). That being said these trade-offs are probably different for each family.

if you know that's what your kid is doing, what are you doing about it?

But, separate from that, the article outlines the challenges that teachers across the country, primarily those in hybrid solutions which the PP's letter champions, are having trying to do two jobs -- prepare for and deliver in person instruction and prepare for and deliver online instruction. (and that's on top of assessments, grading, fielding inquiries from parents, doing one on one when students need it....) And, the fact that even though students may have limited exposure by being in school in smaller groups, if teachers are seeing all of those smaller groups in a week, that's 2-3x the potential exposure for them. Without a significant surge in teacher hiring, expecting teachers to be able to do all of this is not realistic. and, the suggestion that I've seen about having distance learning in larger groups would be disastrous for many students who are only getting by in DL because of those pockets of time of small groups.

I don't think there are any good, easy solutions to this. But I think that asking teachers to teach two different ways is not the solution that will work for anyone.

Maybe they have to work or are in meetings. And it's interesting that you pulled out the only sentence which might have to do with their parenting and disregard all of the rest of these really egregious problems. I know people in CO who are doing hybrid and it was just another adjustment, like learning to do online. Teachers should be resilient and be able to learn new ways of doing things.

sure it was a crappy move, but also that's the one thing in their paragraph that they as a parent have more control over. I don't think you can blame a kid texting when not doing school work on the school/teachers.

Every teacher I know who is tasked with trying to do hybrid is drowning in it. That's what I haven't seen any answers about -- just learn to do it? that's it? The lack of any visionary, systemic solutions is the issue. A lot of teachers I know want to be back with their kids but if it means trying to teach two ways every day, that's not going to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hello! I wish that I could have read your article, but I am not a subscriber. I have been watching the distance learning carefully for my upper elementary schooler, and it seems of very little value. There looks to be less than half an hour of live instruction per day. The rest is either asynchronous or in break-out rooms with other students - the break-out groups are only effective half the time. The teacher has told us essentially that they can't teach writing virtually. The ELA curriculum consists of reading articles online and answering questions (DCPS curriculum). There are also multiple videos to watch that deliver social studies content followed by some specials videos. Half the time when doing the asynchronous work my child is in fact texting or watching unrelated content. I think that two days per week in person would be superior to this, and I think that schools could probably help kids to catch up during that time who need it. That being said some of the kids are miles ahead, and clearly have lots of help at home or have excellent motivation. Going to school two days per week would also be great for socialization, reducing screentime and would help get kids out of the house (sitting indoors for long stretches is sedentary). That being said these trade-offs are probably different for each family.

if you know that's what your kid is doing, what are you doing about it?

But, separate from that, the article outlines the challenges that teachers across the country, primarily those in hybrid solutions which the PP's letter champions, are having trying to do two jobs -- prepare for and deliver in person instruction and prepare for and deliver online instruction. (and that's on top of assessments, grading, fielding inquiries from parents, doing one on one when students need it....) And, the fact that even though students may have limited exposure by being in school in smaller groups, if teachers are seeing all of those smaller groups in a week, that's 2-3x the potential exposure for them. Without a significant surge in teacher hiring, expecting teachers to be able to do all of this is not realistic. and, the suggestion that I've seen about having distance learning in larger groups would be disastrous for many students who are only getting by in DL because of those pockets of time of small groups.

I don't think there are any good, easy solutions to this. But I think that asking teachers to teach two different ways is not the solution that will work for anyone.

If I sit next to her the whole time I can repeatedly remind her to get back to the task. I was only able to do that the week my husband and I were both available, so that my husband could attend to our younger child. Otherwise I can check in part of the time and redirect, but this does not resolve the issue. This is not the teacher's fault, but it is an inherent problem with DL for many children.