Why Did My Private School Kid Have Virtual School on Snow Days But Not My MCPS Kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

If you want to advocate for higher salaries for teachers, go ahead, I’d agree with that. But I do not agree with reducing instructional time for McPS students because MCPS is too lazy/incompetent to include an appropriate number of snow days in its calendars, year after year.

It’s not petty to ask for 180 days of school for MCPS students, half of whom don’t need proficiency standards for reading and math. It’s called prioritizing academic achievement over McPS staffer comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

If you want to advocate for higher salaries for teachers, go ahead, I’d agree with that. But I do not agree with reducing instructional time for McPS students because MCPS is too lazy/incompetent to include an appropriate number of snow days in its calendars, year after year.

It’s not petty to ask for 180 days of school for MCPS students, half of whom don’t need proficiency standards for reading and math. It’s called prioritizing academic achievement over McPS staffer comfort.

Right so don’t throw teachers under the bus - we need them.

[Anonymous]

Because public school kids have it better than private school kids in at least this one way. Throw them a bone every now and then, OP. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because public school kids have it better than private school kids in at least this one way. Throw them a bone every now and then, OP. Sheesh.

How - with 7-8 days of no school for a snowstorm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

If you want to advocate for higher salaries for teachers, go ahead, I’d agree with that. But I do not agree with reducing instructional time for McPS students because MCPS is too lazy/incompetent to include an appropriate number of snow days in its calendars, year after year.

It’s not petty to ask for 180 days of school for MCPS students, half of whom don’t need proficiency standards for reading and math. It’s called prioritizing academic achievement over McPS staffer comfort.

Right so don’t throw teachers under the bus - we need them.

Doing virtual learning isn't throwing teachers under the bus. It's giving a tool for them to complete the curriculum and having their kids achieve grade level outcomes, rather than having them not able to provide instructional time at all, and lose 5 days a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

If you want to advocate for higher salaries for teachers, go ahead, I’d agree with that. But I do not agree with reducing instructional time for McPS students because MCPS is too lazy/incompetent to include an appropriate number of snow days in its calendars, year after year.

It’s not petty to ask for 180 days of school for MCPS students, half of whom don’t need proficiency standards for reading and math. It’s called prioritizing academic achievement over McPS staffer comfort.

Right so don’t throw teachers under the bus - we need them.

Doing virtual learning isn't throwing teachers under the bus. It's giving a tool for them to complete the curriculum and having their kids achieve grade level outcomes, rather than having them not able to provide instructional time at all, and lose 5 days a year.

DP. I think the issue is blaming teachers for the lack of virtual plan. It was not in the power of teachers to develop one. It also wasn’t teachers who opposed developing a virtual plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS never submitted a virtual plan. The shrieking parents HATE virtual, because it doesn’t serve school’s primary purpose to them — a place to park their kid, be it when the roads are icy or on an in-person makeup day. 🙄

Are you new to DCUM? There's an umpteen page long thread wondering why MCPS never bothered to submit its virtual plan that it promised in 2024, when we could be doing virtual like other school districts and not stuck with just 175 instructional days for our kids.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1315160.page

You sound like you want a convenient narrative to blame parents for MCPS's inactivity, so that MCPS staffers can continue to sit home on snow days, and do nothing and get paid for 180 days a year when they only teach for 175.

lol. So freaking petty. Even if they paid teachers double, I still wouldn’t be willing to work their schedule. They have zero flexibility. I am not begrudging them 5 paid snow days.

If you want to advocate for higher salaries for teachers, go ahead, I’d agree with that. But I do not agree with reducing instructional time for McPS students because MCPS is too lazy/incompetent to include an appropriate number of snow days in its calendars, year after year.

It’s not petty to ask for 180 days of school for MCPS students, half of whom don’t need proficiency standards for reading and math. It’s called prioritizing academic achievement over McPS staffer comfort.

Right so don’t throw teachers under the bus - we need them.

Doing virtual learning isn't throwing teachers under the bus. It's giving a tool for them to complete the curriculum and having their kids achieve grade level outcomes, rather than having them not able to provide instructional time at all, and lose 5 days a year.

DP. I think the issue is blaming teachers for the lack of virtual plan. It was not in the power of teachers to develop one. It also wasn’t teachers who opposed developing a virtual plan.

It’s MCPS central office under Taylor that has failed to do the plan, since it was promised to the BoE in 2024. And the BoE who failed to follow up. No one is blaming teachers for this laziness.