Half-days on Wednesdays!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

Relax lady. Some of us have kids who haven’t suffered any learning loss this year.
What I’m REALLY excited for is to see if the WTU and anti-WTU parents form some kind of alliance to defeat this idea. Strange bedfellows!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

Relax lady. Some of us have kids who haven’t suffered any learning loss this year.
What I’m REALLY excited for is to see if the WTU and anti-WTU parents form some kind of alliance to defeat this idea. Strange bedfellows!

Ok so why are you posting here? Do you realize that by "acceleration" they mean "remediation"? They don't mean extra resources for your "advanced" child. Your kid will be going home, or to some kind of aftercare at noon. And yeah, would be nice to see a little more awareness that most/many kids suffered serious disruption and the idea of Wednesday's off is a kind of brutally tone-deaf thing for DCPS to be floating right now. Especially I'm sure for the families that were unable to get in-person seats for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

Relax lady. Some of us have kids who haven’t suffered any learning loss this year.
What I’m REALLY excited for is to see if the WTU and anti-WTU parents form some kind of alliance to defeat this idea. Strange bedfellows!

Ok so why are you posting here? Do you realize that by "acceleration" they mean "remediation"? They don't mean extra resources for your "advanced" child. Your kid will be going home, or to some kind of aftercare at noon. And yeah, would be nice to see a little more awareness that most/many kids suffered serious disruption and the idea of Wednesday's off is a kind of brutally tone-deaf thing for DCPS to be floating right now. Especially I'm sure for the families that were unable to get in-person seats for their kids.

If a child suffered from learning loss this year, wouldn’t they be one of the students who’d stay on Wednesdays for remediation and additional instruction? Isn’t that what parents want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

Relax lady. Some of us have kids who haven’t suffered any learning loss this year.
What I’m REALLY excited for is to see if the WTU and anti-WTU parents form some kind of alliance to defeat this idea. Strange bedfellows!

Ok so why are you posting here? Do you realize that by "acceleration" they mean "remediation"? They don't mean extra resources for your "advanced" child. Your kid will be going home, or to some kind of aftercare at noon. And yeah, would be nice to see a little more awareness that most/many kids suffered serious disruption and the idea of Wednesday's off is a kind of brutally tone-deaf thing for DCPS to be floating right now. Especially I'm sure for the families that were unable to get in-person seats for their kids.

If a child suffered from learning loss this year, wouldn’t they be one of the students who’d stay on Wednesdays for remediation and additional instruction? Isn’t that what parents want?

No - what kids need is actual instruction by actual teachers, not whatever "acceleration" with "outside partners" they are cooking up. And no, I don't think most parents want additional reduction in instructional time. The idea that the baseline for school has changed to "be happy with whatever you get" is very disheartening.

[Anonymous]

OK, seriously, if this pandemic has taught us anything it is that most kids can learn in 1-2 hours per day what they spend 5+ hours in a normal in-person school day teaching. Sure there may be "soft" benefits to all that time in person with other kids, socializing, etc. But I cannot believe that taking one afternoon off per week will have any negative impact on academics. But it would provide time one afternoon per week for parents to supplement with outside instruction, whether that is remedial or advanced. Or have a bit of a breather before sports and other after-school activities. If your kids are too young to be flexible I'm sure after care would be available. Win win win for everyone. Bring it on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, seriously, if this pandemic has taught us anything it is that most kids can learn in 1-2 hours per day what they spend 5+ hours in a normal in-person school day teaching. Sure there may be "soft" benefits to all that time in person with other kids, socializing, etc. But I cannot believe that taking one afternoon off per week will have any negative impact on academics. But it would provide time one afternoon per week for parents to supplement with outside instruction, whether that is remedial or advanced. Or have a bit of a breather before sports and other after-school activities. If your kids are too young to be flexible I'm sure after care would be available. Win win win for everyone. Bring it on.

Are you kidding me? The pandemic taught me kids need to be in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, seriously, if this pandemic has taught us anything it is that most kids can learn in 1-2 hours per day what they spend 5+ hours in a normal in-person school day teaching. Sure there may be "soft" benefits to all that time in person with other kids, socializing, etc. But I cannot believe that taking one afternoon off per week will have any negative impact on academics. But it would provide time one afternoon per week for parents to supplement with outside instruction, whether that is remedial or advanced. Or have a bit of a breather before sports and other after-school activities. If your kids are too young to be flexible I'm sure after care would be available. Win win win for everyone. Bring it on.

I teach science. My kids who regularly signed on have been presented about 85% of the content this year. But they’ve gotten 5% of the lab or engineering skills. I normally teach a lot of math as a part of their labs. They didn’t get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

Is this a serious question? Because I KNOW how it would affect me: it would reduce instructional time and regular routines at exactly the time we need to get those things back. Kids don't need "acceleration" right now (by which I assume you mean remediation, but we're not allowed to say that anymore) - those kids need regular, in-class instruction, possibly LONGER days and a longer school year.

This is spoken like a TFA bot. Do we remember when DCPS tried the longer hours, longer school year pilot. Kids don’t show for the longer year; kids, especially ES, burn out in a longer day. More time does not equal more instruction this isn’t a simple input/output table

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

I agree with a lot of this. I’d be curious to know what the “acceleration” programming looks like—lots of parents have complained here that their kids are falling behind, and this could be an opportunity for them to catch up, with specialized attention and instruction. I’m not wild about the idea but I’m willing to hear more. I know my teacher friends are not going to be happy about more PD.

+100. In theory this is fine, and would work great in a private school but not a large school system like DCPS, which has already shown us that they can’t implement anything good. Agree with PPs, this will be outsourced to online learning with minimum wage caretakers.

Stop being naive. Who do you think is going to provide this specialized attention and instruction? If DCPS wants to remedy learning loss they need to be increasing instructional time across the board, not decreasing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do we organize against this terrible idea?

Write to your elected representatives. Children need instructional time with their teachers in the 2021-2022 school year.

[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

Is this a serious question? Because I KNOW how it would affect me: it would reduce instructional time and regular routines at exactly the time we need to get those things back. Kids don't need "acceleration" right now (by which I assume you mean remediation, but we're not allowed to say that anymore) - those kids need regular, in-class instruction, possibly LONGER days and a longer school year.

This is spoken like a TFA bot. Do we remember when DCPS tried the longer hours, longer school year pilot. Kids don’t show for the longer year; kids, especially ES, burn out in a longer day. More time does not equal more instruction this isn’t a simple input/output table

This! Again, the knee jerk negativity is weird. I would at least want to know more before I “organize against” it. The parents in this thread getting ready to throw a fit over a rumor are precisely why DCPS is such a clunky, ineffective entity. This is a major reason schools have been closed for a year — so many parents are afraid of innovative solutions to problems, and obsessed with maximizing hours in desks listening to teachers talk, which is one of the least effective teaching methods available to us.

I have an elementary kid, I work, my kid doesn’t need remedial acceleration, and I’m open to this idea. I hope the negative nancies don’t kill it before it can be explored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

Is this a serious question? Because I KNOW how it would affect me: it would reduce instructional time and regular routines at exactly the time we need to get those things back. Kids don't need "acceleration" right now (by which I assume you mean remediation, but we're not allowed to say that anymore) - those kids need regular, in-class instruction, possibly LONGER days and a longer school year.

This is spoken like a TFA bot. Do we remember when DCPS tried the longer hours, longer school year pilot. Kids don’t show for the longer year; kids, especially ES, burn out in a longer day. More time does not equal more instruction this isn’t a simple input/output table

You have got to be joking. You can’t possibly be arguing for LESS school now, and thinking anyone gives a f about union bugaboos like TSA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

Is this a serious question? Because I KNOW how it would affect me: it would reduce instructional time and regular routines at exactly the time we need to get those things back. Kids don't need "acceleration" right now (by which I assume you mean remediation, but we're not allowed to say that anymore) - those kids need regular, in-class instruction, possibly LONGER days and a longer school year.

This is spoken like a TFA bot. Do we remember when DCPS tried the longer hours, longer school year pilot. Kids don’t show for the longer year; kids, especially ES, burn out in a longer day. More time does not equal more instruction this isn’t a simple input/output table

This! Again, the knee jerk negativity is weird. I would at least want to know more before I “organize against” it. The parents in this thread getting ready to throw a fit over a rumor are precisely why DCPS is such a clunky, ineffective entity. This is a major reason schools have been closed for a year — so many parents are afraid of innovative solutions to problems, and obsessed with maximizing hours in desks listening to teachers talk, which is one of the least effective teaching methods available to us.

I have an elementary kid, I work, my kid doesn’t need remedial acceleration, and I’m open to this idea. I hope the negative nancies don’t kill it before it can be explored.

What? The reason schools have been closed for a year is NOT because parents are “afraid of innovating”. Sorry but if you are blaming parents and not ridiculous DCPS, I really don’t know what to say to you. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the knee jerk rejection of it. Why would you "organize against" this without learning what it is and how it will impact you directly?

I also don't understand the obsession with "hours of instruction". If this year has taught me anything, it is that hours of instruction is a poor proxy for learning, and that kids need a lot more variety in their schedules in order to learn (including breaks and independent study time and opportunities to talk to their classmates in an unstructured way). I feel like a half-day on Wednesdays would be a great opportunity to not only provide teachers with professional development time (which they need and deserve -- who doesn't want their kids' teachers to be growing and improving?), but could also really benefit kids, especially those who need acceleration. But I could also foresee this being an opportunity for non-academic interest groups, literacy tutoring with volunteers, and other enrichment activities. Or just a break from academics to play and be active in aftercare.

Why is everyone automatically assuming this is bad? I don't get it.

Is this a serious question? Because I KNOW how it would affect me: it would reduce instructional time and regular routines at exactly the time we need to get those things back. Kids don't need "acceleration" right now (by which I assume you mean remediation, but we're not allowed to say that anymore) - those kids need regular, in-class instruction, possibly LONGER days and a longer school year.

This is spoken like a TFA bot. Do we remember when DCPS tried the longer hours, longer school year pilot. Kids don’t show for the longer year; kids, especially ES, burn out in a longer day. More time does not equal more instruction this isn’t a simple input/output table

This! Again, the knee jerk negativity is weird. I would at least want to know more before I “organize against” it. The parents in this thread getting ready to throw a fit over a rumor are precisely why DCPS is such a clunky, ineffective entity. This is a major reason schools have been closed for a year — so many parents are afraid of innovative solutions to problems, and obsessed with maximizing hours in desks listening to teachers talk, which is one of the least effective teaching methods available to us.

I have an elementary kid, I work, my kid doesn’t need remedial acceleration, and I’m open to this idea. I hope the negative nancies don’t kill it before it can be explored.

what planet have you been on the last year? schools were closed because unions demanded it and DCPS couldn’t stand up to them. Nothing to do with parents not wanting “innovative” solutions. And yes, I will organize against things I think are bad ideas.