Charters Starting on Monday?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:A handful are trying to do CARES-like classes.
Just goes to show charters aren't better, they are necessarily worse but seems like no point to have them.


Anyone who would say this didn't live in DC before Charters.

Are Charters better? Not inherently, of course not.

But they are another good alternative and DC parents need all the good alternatives we can get. Almost half of parents choose Charter schools.
Anonymous
Yu Ying and DCI in February!

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!


Yes definitely, what I meant was that the whole situation is just disappointing
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!


Yes definitely, what I meant was that the whole situation is just disappointing


LAMB and MV (not sure about the others you mention) have hybrid plans lined up in detail and asked parents to commit to their choice. Neither has actually said when the plan will move forward so I'm not sure if that's worth much, but it's "lined up". They also both have been doing CARES style classrooms for a while now for a few students.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:ITS is starting some CARES type classrooms. For the first time.


Finally! But it is a very small number of kids.

Seeing DCPS provide more service than so many charters. has really been eye-opening.


Depends on the DCPS and the Charter. Some charters are already in person or with CARES set ups. Some schools are making only a handful of seats available.


I just get tired of ITS telling us they want more at-risk kids and then not really following through on providing a level of service that makes the school attractive or feasible.


The data I've seen (surveys) have not indicated that at-risk parents are the main ones who want school to return to in person.

What have you seen that shows otherwise?


That is the overall trend but there are some at-risk kids whose parents do want to send them. And there has not been a survey in quite a while so people's needs may change.


I've come to think that this is the wrong thing to be measuring. Many say, oh, only the high income, white parents want in person, so let's not cater to them. When it comes to the vaccine, it's also the case that white, high income people are more likely to want the vaccine without hesitation, but we're not saying, then let's scrap it, we're saying let's work on that with outreach campaigns etc. This should be the approach in schools as well, and those at risk families need to be given a chance to join the in-person later on should they choose. There are a variety of better answers than let's just stay closed because the neediest families are scared to come into our building - let's instead take them to tour the building, call and talk to them about it, etc - why not? I also want to stress that many, many at-risk families very much do want in person learning, it's just a somewhat lower percent than those who do not fall into this group, citywide.




Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!


Yes definitely, what I meant was that the whole situation is just disappointing


LAMB and MV (not sure about the others you mention) have hybrid plans lined up in detail and asked parents to commit to their choice. Neither has actually said when the plan will move forward so I'm not sure if that's worth much, but it's "lined up". They also both have been doing CARES style classrooms for a while now for a few students.


I’m a MV parent and no one has asked me what our choice is. (MV8)
Anonymous
Has anyone gotten clear direction from their charter on what they are waiting for to open. Ours keep saying they will open with its safe , but I'm in the dark of what the definition of Safe is and how we achieve that? If we are waiting for new cases to disappear or kids to be vaccinated there is 0% chance we will be open at all in 2021 --> if this is the case I'm definitely entering the lottery next year.

We all saw the Washington Post Headlines yesterday stating "CDC finds scant spread of covid in schools with precautions in place" --> many schools across the country and in our own city have very successfully proven this. We also now know that the outlook for kids and Covid is very positive ( As of a few weeks ago - 2.3M kids in the US Under 18 have gotten Covid , about 12,000 kids (0.6% of total) were hospitalized, 178 died (0.0089% of the total), 1,600 kids got MIS-C (0.08% of total). The number of deaths seen in children under 18 due to covid is on pace with the annual number of deaths usually experienced by the Flu (last year 188 kids under 18 died of the flu)

...... what am I missing?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Has anyone gotten clear direction from their charter on what they are waiting for to open. Ours keep saying they will open with its safe , but I'm in the dark of what the definition of Safe is and how we achieve that? If we are waiting for new cases to disappear or kids to be vaccinated there is 0% chance we will be open at all in 2021 --> if this is the case I'm definitely entering the lottery next year.

We all saw the Washington Post Headlines yesterday stating "CDC finds scant spread of covid in schools with precautions in place" --> many schools across the country and in our own city have very successfully proven this. We also now know that the outlook for kids and Covid is very positive ( As of a few weeks ago - 2.3M kids in the US Under 18 have gotten Covid , about 12,000 kids (0.6% of total) were hospitalized, 178 died (0.0089% of the total), 1,600 kids got MIS-C (0.08% of total). The number of deaths seen in children under 18 due to covid is on pace with the annual number of deaths usually experienced by the Flu (last year 188 kids under 18 died of the flu)

...... what am I missing?



The Post article left out the part where the CDC says indoor dining and bars should be closed in order to keep community spread low enough to safely reopen schools.
Anonymous
They'll open when it is safe for the adults. That's the impression I've gotten from my kid's charter.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:They'll open when it is safe for the adults. That's the impression I've gotten from my kid's charter.


That's the point. It IS.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!


Yes definitely, what I meant was that the whole situation is just disappointing


LAMB and MV (not sure about the others you mention) have hybrid plans lined up in detail and asked parents to commit to their choice. Neither has actually said when the plan will move forward so I'm not sure if that's worth much, but it's "lined up". They also both have been doing CARES style classrooms for a while now for a few students.


I’m a MV parent and no one has asked me what our choice is. (MV8)


Yes they did. They did not email each family directly but it’s in the survey if you did them. They presented the data also at the meetings of percentage families wanting hybrid, DL, etc...broken down by populations.

If you did not participate in the survey or attend the meetings, then you would not know.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying and DCI in February!



YY looks like it will be 1 week in person followed by 3 weeks at home... so kids might go 3 weeks total before summer?


Seems better than what LAMB, DCB, MV, and Stokes have lined up!!


Yes definitely, what I meant was that the whole situation is just disappointing


LAMB and MV (not sure about the others you mention) have hybrid plans lined up in detail and asked parents to commit to their choice. Neither has actually said when the plan will move forward so I'm not sure if that's worth much, but it's "lined up". They also both have been doing CARES style classrooms for a while now for a few students.


I’m a MV parent and no one has asked me what our choice is. (MV8)


Yes they did. They did not email each family directly but it’s in the survey if you did them. They presented the data also at the meetings of percentage families wanting hybrid, DL, etc...broken down by populations.

If you did not participate in the survey or attend the meetings, then you would not know.


My guess is I’m not the only one who didn’t call in to this meeting. It sounds like they don’t have a specific plan for which kids are returning, then. Ultimately they will have to reach out to each person individually to account for who is actually returning and will be in a seat.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Has anyone gotten clear direction from their charter on what they are waiting for to open. Ours keep saying they will open with its safe , but I'm in the dark of what the definition of Safe is and how we achieve that? If we are waiting for new cases to disappear or kids to be vaccinated there is 0% chance we will be open at all in 2021 --> if this is the case I'm definitely entering the lottery next year.

We all saw the Washington Post Headlines yesterday stating "CDC finds scant spread of covid in schools with precautions in place" --> many schools across the country and in our own city have very successfully proven this. We also now know that the outlook for kids and Covid is very positive ( As of a few weeks ago - 2.3M kids in the US Under 18 have gotten Covid , about 12,000 kids (0.6% of total) were hospitalized, 178 died (0.0089% of the total), 1,600 kids got MIS-C (0.08% of total). The number of deaths seen in children under 18 due to covid is on pace with the annual number of deaths usually experienced by the Flu (last year 188 kids under 18 died of the flu)

...... what am I missing?



The Post article left out the part where the CDC says indoor dining and bars should be closed in order to keep community spread low enough to safely reopen schools.


This is the part that gets me angry. Our city's leaders are prioritizing indoor dining over our citizens' health and children's education.

The school leadership are doing their best given a wildly diverse set of priorities among both parents and teachers.

The city's leaders, however, have continued to, irresponsibly, open bars and restaurants and keep them open.
post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Message Quick Reply
Go to: