DC should end remote option - for charter and DCPS

[Anonymous]

DCPS should absolutely end any kind of simulcasting.
And- like other districts enrollment in virtual academy is application based. Did you actually attend virtual classes this year? If not: you are back in class. Did you actually do the assignments? If not- it’s brick and mortar. Did you make AYP?

My fear with DL beyond this year is simulcasting AND that DL isn’t real school. So eventually these kids will roll back into a classroom and be a hot mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because it creates more work for teachers, and short-changes the kids in the classroom.

I support an all-virtual option that is run through a charter or a city-wide program, that only utilizes teachers that teach virtually. But you shouldn't force all schools to offer a virtual option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.

Who are you to say it’s a false belief schools are unsafe? Schools have been proven to be unsafe for Black children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.

Who are you to say it’s a false belief schools are unsafe? Schools have been proven to be unsafe for Black children.

Ok, then if you feel that way you can keep your black child at home and do friendship. I will be sending mine back to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

Ok, how are they being offered? What are your "easy" solutions? Set up multiple online schools? How to plan/staff/attract students in late May? The lottery is over. How would you plan to manage standing up and populating a school within 2 months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

TOUGH. The city does not need to stand up an online school of every flavor because they "are" possible. We have finite resources and even less time before August.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.

Who are you to say it’s a false belief schools are unsafe? Schools have been proven to be unsafe for Black children.

So, you think the racially equitable result is for black kids to be enrolled in a proven inferior form of education (online) while white kids in DC get to go in person? That makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

If that's the standard, then why not halve class sizes, include horseback riding in the curriculum or provide one-to-one tutoring for every kid? I mean, those are possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

The things you want (lots of online choices) are not easily solved. If you need a high degree of specificity I think homeschool is really the right option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.

Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.

If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.

1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.

If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.

I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?

I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.

Lol, are you joking? Sure, it's "easily solved." Let's create an entirely parallel school system, forever, using a demonstrably poor delivery model (online). What is even online Montessori?

But anyway - sure, I'm willing to contemplate that there may be parent demand for online schools. Luckily we are in a choice/demand environment in DC, so if there truly is demand, feel free to start your online charter Montessori.

[Anonymous]

Damn no one taking about going in bounds. Just keep moaning here. This is so entertaining