Does Council bill just let people keep their kids home and not educate them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So you are saying that this portion of the bill is stupid, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So you are saying that this portion of the bill is stupid, yes?

The fact that it needed to be enacted is definitely stupid. This should have been resolved by the Bowser administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

No, this thread is not about the kids with medical needs or in families with medical needs. This thread is about a separate section of the legislation that could have easily been left out. Just because you said "actually" doesn't make you correct.

I thought all along that it was problematic to allow "just scared" parents to keep their kids home (without medical needs or without being in families with medical needs), without disenrolling them or requiring them to homeschool. For the exact reasons we are discussing in this thread (and which seem to be found among at least 30 cases that have CPS is looking into further).

Keep telling yourself that, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

No, this thread is not about the kids with medical needs or in families with medical needs. This thread is about a separate section of the legislation that could have easily been left out. Just because you said "actually" doesn't make you correct.

I thought all along that it was problematic to allow "just scared" parents to keep their kids home (without medical needs or without being in families with medical needs), without disenrolling them or requiring them to homeschool. For the exact reasons we are discussing in this thread (and which seem to be found among at least 30 cases that have CPS is looking into further).

Keep telling yourself that, Jan.

Tell myself what? Something I suspected would be true when this was originally discussed, and is proving to actually be true? Well yeah, I'll keep telling myself that, because it is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So you are saying that this portion of the bill is stupid, yes?

The fact that it needed to be enacted is definitely stupid. This should have been resolved by the Bowser administration.

Well, I think Bowser did the right thing by NOT allowing these "just scared" parents to remain enrolled. It's the Council that is at fault here, for opening the door for education neglect of children.

[Anonymous]

Seriously if the people arguing here are representative of the parents that pushed for this legislation....let's just say you guys aren't doing a great job at making people come around to your side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So you are saying that this portion of the bill is stupid, yes?

The fact that it needed to be enacted is definitely stupid. This should have been resolved by the Bowser administration.

Bowser DID resolve it by not letting it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel sorry for the kids of all these over anxious parents, who are depriving them of the experience of going to school and learning together with their peers.

I am a PP who thinks all of you drama queens are being totally ridiculous about this bill. My kids are in school. But I understand that I'm lucky that everyone in my household is low risk for COVID. I am not put in the position of having to choose to keep my kids home for a few months until they themselves can be vaccinated, because the stupid mayor doesn't think a high risk sibling or a high risk parent is a good enough reason to have virtual school. I don't have to choose between playing chicken with DCPS for a few months (and risk CPS getting called of all ridiculous-ass things) or sending them to school risking my own life or the life of my kid's grandma or the life of one of my children.

In other words, I have empathy.

you never had to choose. you could have homeschooled.

Reading comprehension. My kids are in school.

DP. But apparently you lack reading comprehension on what this ENTIRE thread is about, which is NOT about high risk kids, or kids in high risk families.

Actually, if you had been following this in the news for the months leading up to this legislation, that's exactly what it's about. The Council repeatedly tried to get the mayor to expand the virtual option so that people with legitimate concerns would be able to join, the mayor refused, and this is the consequence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

A loathsomely cavalier attitude to have about children suffering neglect. None of the children who will suffer “played a stupid game” but they will suffer for it. And here you are, with the best you can offer—a tired cliche. Take a look at yourself.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have an update on what's happening with the 30 cases that were referred for closer inspection of educational neglect, when the kids just didn't show up for school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an update on what's happening with the 30 cases that were referred for closer inspection of educational neglect, when the kids just didn't show up for school?

I don't think it's likely we will get much more information, to protect the privacy of the children involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an update on what's happening with the 30 cases that were referred for closer inspection of educational neglect, when the kids just didn't show up for school?

I don't think it's likely we will get much more information, to protect the privacy of the children involved.

I was thinking more along the lines of the number of those cases that were determined to be educational neglect versus something excusable by the Council's bill. More, I'm wondering about the CPS process where things get pushed forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have an update on what's happening with the 30 cases that were referred for closer inspection of educational neglect, when the kids just didn't show up for school?

I don't think it's likely we will get much more information, to protect the privacy of the children involved.

I was thinking more along the lines of the number of those cases that were determined to be educational neglect versus something excusable by the Council's bill. More, I'm wondering about the CPS process where things get pushed forward.

I'm not sure we'll get more information. Hopefully CPS will work with DCPS to get the families the support they need to get their kids back to school.