In-person school plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sent from the principal of Poolesville High School. Sounds like supervised virtual.

-----

While much is still left to be decided, it is important to understand that the students’ experiences in the building will not look the same as it did before the pandemic. We are so excited at the prospect of welcoming our students back, but that excitement comes with setting realistic expectations and understanding our limitations. Most students who return partially to the building are coming in for support as a compliment to the virtual experience, and they will have adults available to supervise and support their virtual learning. I will be transparent in our planning, and I will keep you updated with any logistics, schedule changes, and expectations. I appreciate your patience and support as we design the virtual and in-person experiences for our students.

Supervised virtual (aka DL with babysitting according to my principal) is planned for my MS. Definitely not what we had in March.

Meaning, there will be no live instruction in the classroom? Teachers will still be teaching from home and kids in the classroom will see them on screens?
That's not what I thought 'hybrid' entailed. In MS kids don't need babysitting, if that's what the plan is, everyone might as well continue DL from home.

Each school has some flexibility to adopt a model that works for them, based on the needs of their staff and students. This is definitely one of the ones that came up during our staff meeting as being one of the possible choices. Teachers wouldn't be teaching from home (unless they had an ADA accommodation) but they might be teaching via Zoom to students in the same classroom that they are in (while simultaneously teaching to students who are learning from home). This seems like the worst option, as it has all of the negatives of DL without any of the benefits (such as being able to get up and stretch, going to grab a snack, not having to wear as mask etc.).

The reason for this has to do with the lack of funds (and people) to hire more staff. Assuming that a school had exactly 50 % pick DL and and 50 % pick in-person, the DL half would still need instruction while the IP half were in the school. This would mean hiring twice as many teachers which isn't feasible. Ergo the concurrent/simultaneous model

If only 50% of the kids chose in-person, they should be able to go to school 5 days a week where the 50% teachers teach them in person. The rest can stay virtual 5 days a week and the other half of the teachers can teach them virtually. No need to hire anyone. Problem solved.

Let's look at a sample elementary grade, say fifth grade. In the whole grade level there are 100 students. Right now they are split between four teachers (25 per class). Now that a return to in-person instruction is being considered, 50 of them want to return for in-person and 50 want to remain DL. The 50 students who want to continue DL are split into two groups of 25 and two of the teachers instruct them. That leaves the 50 students for in-person instruction to be taught by the other two teachers. Typically you could have two classes of 25, but the classes sizes have to be significantly reduced (no more than 13 students per room) in order to maintain social distancing. That means that both classes of 25 would actually need to be split in half, which would result in the school needing a total of four teachers for in-person instruction. This results in a shortfall of two teachers since the school needs a total of six in order to teacher in-person and DL and they only have four. Problem, most certainly, not solved. Not unless the county can find the funds and the teachers.

Here it is, broken down another way:
Teacher 1: Teaches 25 students via Zoom five days a week
Teacher 2: Teaches 25 students via Zoom five days a week
Teacher 3: Teachers 12-13 students in-person five days a week
Teacher 4: Teachers 12-13 students in-person five days a week
25 students, whose parent's signed them up for in-person instruction, are not receiving any instruction

Therefore they need to hire two new teachers to offset the reduced class sizes:
Teacher 1: Teaches 25 students via Zoom five days a week
Teacher 2: Teaches 25 students via Zoom five days a week
Teacher 3: Teaches 12-13 students in-person five days a week
Teacher 4: Teaches 12-13 students in-person five days a week
Teacher 5 (New hire): Teaches 12-13 students in-person five days a week
Teacher 6 (New hire): Teaches 12-13 students in-person five days a week

NP - if teachers are vaccinated they don’t need to maintain social distance, just masks for all. They can keep all 4 classes at 25 students. Also they can teach 5 days a week, rather than 4+homeroom only on Wed, which is a joke. Parents who don’t want their kids in person can simply keep them in DL.

DP. The CDC is not recommending an end to social distancing for people who have been vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

I work for MCPS. It is sounding more and more like the "support model" will be used if schools return. Like others have posted, students who opt in for returning to school will be in a classroom with an adult. The student will be spaced six feet away from the other kids and will log onto Zoom and continue learning the same way he/she did at home. The adult in the room might be a para who is supporting them (i.e. - babysitting) or could be a teacher who is also leading their own Zoom class. I can't imagine being a seven year old sitting in a classroom on Zoom being distracted by the teacher at the front of the room who is teaching another set of kids on Zoom who are learning at home or in another room.
The way it was explained to us is that most classrooms would only have 12 students. In my second grade classroom, I might be teaching my 21 students on Zoom. Of my 21 students, many of them will be virtual (based on their responses) but I'll have a mix of kids in my physical classroom. Some of them will be on Zoom with me (in the same room) while the rest will be on Zoom with my teammates who are teaching from home.
Personally, I wish we could do the direct model. 12 kids in the classroom with a teacher who is leading direct instruction like "normal". I know parents/teachers don't want to lose their classes but this support model looks like a disaster. I'd much rather have a new set of kids with me in my physical space if it means we can stay off Zoom and learn together in a traditional sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for MCPS. It is sounding more and more like the "support model" will be used if schools return. Like others have posted, students who opt in for returning to school will be in a classroom with an adult. The student will be spaced six feet away from the other kids and will log onto Zoom and continue learning the same way he/she did at home. The adult in the room might be a para who is supporting them (i.e. - babysitting) or could be a teacher who is also leading their own Zoom class. I can't imagine being a seven year old sitting in a classroom on Zoom being distracted by the teacher at the front of the room who is teaching another set of kids on Zoom who are learning at home or in another room.
The way it was explained to us is that most classrooms would only have 12 students. In my second grade classroom, I might be teaching my 21 students on Zoom. Of my 21 students, many of them will be virtual (based on their responses) but I'll have a mix of kids in my physical classroom. Some of them will be on Zoom with me (in the same room) while the rest will be on Zoom with my teammates who are teaching from home.
Personally, I wish we could do the direct model. 12 kids in the classroom with a teacher who is leading direct instruction like "normal". I know parents/teachers don't want to lose their classes but this support model looks like a disaster. I'd much rather have a new set of kids with me in my physical space if it means we can stay off Zoom and learn together in a traditional sense.

If you think Paras "babysit", you have no idea what's going on in classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

DP. I doubt they would make a determination foe the rest of the year. Probably put off the potential restart to 3/1, with a decision in Feb for that date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

They absolutely won't decide that with teachers slated to be vaccinated Feb 1.

[Anonymous]

Please read these new findings from NC about schools and share widely: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2021/01/06/peds.2020-048090

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

There are so many teachers that they won’t get to be vaccinated in time even jumping the line. Hogan should be impeached

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for MCPS. It is sounding more and more like the "support model" will be used if schools return. Like others have posted, students who opt in for returning to school will be in a classroom with an adult. The student will be spaced six feet away from the other kids and will log onto Zoom and continue learning the same way he/she did at home. The adult in the room might be a para who is supporting them (i.e. - babysitting) or could be a teacher who is also leading their own Zoom class. I can't imagine being a seven year old sitting in a classroom on Zoom being distracted by the teacher at the front of the room who is teaching another set of kids on Zoom who are learning at home or in another room.
The way it was explained to us is that most classrooms would only have 12 students. In my second grade classroom, I might be teaching my 21 students on Zoom. Of my 21 students, many of them will be virtual (based on their responses) but I'll have a mix of kids in my physical classroom. Some of them will be on Zoom with me (in the same room) while the rest will be on Zoom with my teammates who are teaching from home.
Personally, I wish we could do the direct model. 12 kids in the classroom with a teacher who is leading direct instruction like "normal". I know parents/teachers don't want to lose their classes but this support model looks like a disaster. I'd much rather have a new set of kids with me in my physical space if it means we can stay off Zoom and learn together in a traditional sense.

If you think Paras "babysit", you have no idea what's going on in classrooms.

PP here. Simmer down. I'm a classroom teacher. Of course I know paras don't babysit. Paras and the custodial staff are the backbone of our school. I was referring to the responsibilities they will have should we go in the direction of a support model. They (or any other employee) will supervise the kids in the physical space if there aren't enough certified teachers to be in each room. Kids will be logged into Zoom as usual being instructed by a certified teacher.

[Anonymous]

Please everyone.

Can you ignore the pronouncements of our public schools and just focus on the viral spread in our area?

We are not returning in buildings any time soon because our case numbers continue to rise far beyond any safe threshold.

MCPS and other school systems have mandates to plan for reopenings and inform the public of these plans. They are HUGE SHIPS that cannot react rapidly to current events. So when you receive an email about reopenings, you're seeing the culmination of team work that started months before. Just because cases are rising in our area doesn't mean MCPS will stop those projects. It's silly to read an email saying "Small groups in person on Feb 1st!" when we all know we'll be in even worse shape at that time, but please realize that MCPS knows it too! And is trying to course correct with the next email, which will get it wrong too. Viral spread is too fast for large public school systems, and they apparently haven't hired virologists, or are knowingly stringing people along for political reasons...

It is 100% certain that schools will not full open this academic year, because vaccinations will take at least half the year to make a significant dent into the viral spread.

We might see a small hybrid reopening towards the end of the year, when new cases go below the stated threshold.

Plan accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Actually there are not “a lot” of questions about the vaccine. Yes it is POSSIBLE that vaccinated people could spread it. That does not mean we don’t open schools. This is exactly what the unions want to do. Create doubt and ignore research on schools and community spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

They absolutely won't decide that with teachers slated to be vaccinated Feb 1.

2/1 was not stated as the date teachers start to be vaccinated. Rather 1b begins in February. Vaccinations could begin 2/1, but also 2/2, 2/15, 2/22, 2/28 or any date in February.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

They absolutely won't decide that with teachers slated to be vaccinated Feb 1.

2/1 was not stated as the date teachers start to be vaccinated. Rather 1b begins in February. Vaccinations could begin 2/1, but also 2/2, 2/15, 2/22, 2/28 or any date in February.

Vaccinating teachers is not what is going to get numbers down to make it safe for everyone to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of questions to the vaccine, including if you can still get covid and spread it. The in-person plan is not exclusive to just teachers being vaccinated. Its about bringing numbers down so everyone is safe. Those who just use teachers/vaccines as an excuse to get their kids back in are hopeless as they only care about themselves and their needs and not the community.

Governor Hogan up the priority of vaccinating teachers to phase 1B so students can get back to schools. Why have teachers jump the line if teachers are still going to teach at home? If MCPS determines on January 12th to stay virtual for the rest of the year, then MCPS teachers should not get the vaccine in 1B. Teachers should go back to the other criteria such as age and health so other people such as seniors over age 65 and people who work in jobs such as grocery clerks and public transportation can get their shots in February. There’s little need to vaccinate teachers who teach from home.

So, on January 12th, MCPS will tell the plan for the rest of this school year? I wonder will they mention about this summer and next school year? What time will be the meeting?

They absolutely won't decide that with teachers slated to be vaccinated Feb 1.

2/1 was not stated as the date teachers start to be vaccinated. Rather 1b begins in February. Vaccinations could begin 2/1, but also 2/2, 2/15, 2/22, 2/28 or any date in February.

MD said cohort 1B will be in full swing by Feb 1, and that vaccinations will begin in Jan.