Would you put your ES student in a distance learning pod at daycare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am impressed by the ingenuity of the private sector.

+1. My kids don't need it but good for Bar-T and the other providers for coming up with solutions. I do think MCPS or the state needs to pay part of the costs so it can be affordable to families

This is already being done. There are childcare subsidies available for lower income families.

There is going to be a massive increase in requests for subsidies and I don't know where the funding will come from. Subsidies were already very underfunded.

I definitely agree with folks that it's great these providers are creating options for families that need child care, but have huge concerns about MCPS essentially allowing private companies to charge for children to go to public school.

As one of the parents who hopes to send her kid, this is not public school. It's childcare. I don't consider DL public school. We're going to identify specific learning objectives for our kids, separate from the MCPS curriculum, and supplement to meet those goals. That's the best I think we can hope for from this year, particularly with elementary-aged kids. DL is, frankly, a way for school systems to provide the illusion of offering real education so that they can maintain their funding. I'm not saying it's not the least bad option, but it is not public school.

I agree it's not the same as in-person schooling. It does mean people who can pay can have a dedicated adult to help their children learn using space in public schools, and people who can't pay won't.

Right, although a lot of parents are already advocating for subsidies, and I think the companies will do their best to accommodate parents who can't afford full freight.

It may not necessarily be at schools, either; KAH said they've identified 11 other potential sites, in case the schools don't work out. Which is great, because working families need childcare, in some form or another, and it should be as accessible as possible.

These companies do wonderful work. But they are not going to subsidize child care of their own accord for schools with nearly all FARMS students. Also, offering child care for all students who want it is very contrary to the whole point of not having in-person school.

There were plenty of us parents who wanted in person school for our elementary-aged kids. And, not all FARMS kids would attend these programs, AND, it's not entirely going to be the companies subsidizing them (the state offers childcare subsidies, for example).

I''m actually not sure what the point of not having in-person school is, at least at the elementary level. Preventing spread of COVID-19? Acquiescing to teachers' unions and (some) parents? Optics? Utter lack of will to do right by our kids? All of the above?

If you don't want to send your kids, don't send them. There are plenty of other strategies for reducing rates of COVID-19 that you can advocate for that having nothing to do with this issue.

[Anonymous]

YES! These centers are adhering to MSDE sanitation, social distancing, health and are licensed. These centers are inspected.

Home 'pods' are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am impressed by the ingenuity of the private sector.

+1. My kids don't need it but good for Bar-T and the other providers for coming up with solutions. I do think MCPS or the state needs to pay part of the costs so it can be affordable to families

This is already being done. There are childcare subsidies available for lower income families.

There is going to be a massive increase in requests for subsidies and I don't know where the funding will come from. Subsidies were already very underfunded.

I definitely agree with folks that it's great these providers are creating options for families that need child care, but have huge concerns about MCPS essentially allowing private companies to charge for children to go to public school.

As one of the parents who hopes to send her kid, this is not public school. It's childcare. I don't consider DL public school. We're going to identify specific learning objectives for our kids, separate from the MCPS curriculum, and supplement to meet those goals. That's the best I think we can hope for from this year, particularly with elementary-aged kids. DL is, frankly, a way for school systems to provide the illusion of offering real education so that they can maintain their funding. I'm not saying it's not the least bad option, but it is not public school.

I agree it's not the same as in-person schooling. It does mean people who can pay can have a dedicated adult to help their children learn using space in public schools, and people who can't pay won't.

Which is not a new thing--I remember when I was in high school, there were lots of kids who paid private tutors to work with them in the school library (the library had rooms you could check out for group work and tutoring).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YES! These centers are adhering to MSDE sanitation, social distancing, health and are licensed. These centers are inspected.

Home 'pods' are not.

You also don't have to deal with the nightmares of running or joining an informal pod.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YES! These centers are adhering to MSDE sanitation, social distancing, health and are licensed. These centers are inspected.

Home 'pods' are not.

You also don't have to deal with the nightmares of running or joining an informal pod.

+1 One of the things I have enjoyed about the pandemic is not negotiating carpools, etc!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am impressed by the ingenuity of the private sector.

+1. My kids don't need it but good for Bar-T and the other providers for coming up with solutions. I do think MCPS or the state needs to pay part of the costs so it can be affordable to families

This is already being done. There are childcare subsidies available for lower income families.

There is going to be a massive increase in requests for subsidies and I don't know where the funding will come from. Subsidies were already very underfunded.

I definitely agree with folks that it's great these providers are creating options for families that need child care, but have huge concerns about MCPS essentially allowing private companies to charge for children to go to public school.

As one of the parents who hopes to send her kid, this is not public school. It's childcare. I don't consider DL public school. We're going to identify specific learning objectives for our kids, separate from the MCPS curriculum, and supplement to meet those goals. That's the best I think we can hope for from this year, particularly with elementary-aged kids. DL is, frankly, a way for school systems to provide the illusion of offering real education so that they can maintain their funding. I'm not saying it's not the least bad option, but it is not public school.

I agree it's not the same as in-person schooling. It does mean people who can pay can have a dedicated adult to help their children learn using space in public schools, and people who can't pay won't.

Right, although a lot of parents are already advocating for subsidies, and I think the companies will do their best to accommodate parents who can't afford full freight.

It may not necessarily be at schools, either; KAH said they've identified 11 other potential sites, in case the schools don't work out. Which is great, because working families need childcare, in some form or another, and it should be as accessible as possible.

These companies do wonderful work. But they are not going to subsidize child care of their own accord for schools with nearly all FARMS students. Also, offering child care for all students who want it is very contrary to the whole point of not having in-person school.

There were plenty of us parents who wanted in person school for our elementary-aged kids. And, not all FARMS kids would attend these programs, AND, it's not entirely going to be the companies subsidizing them (the state offers childcare subsidies, for example).

I''m actually not sure what the point of not having in-person school is, at least at the elementary level. Preventing spread of COVID-19? Acquiescing to teachers' unions and (some) parents? Optics? Utter lack of will to do right by our kids? All of the above?

If you don't want to send your kids, don't send them. There are plenty of other strategies for reducing rates of COVID-19 that you can advocate for that having nothing to do with this issue.

Sorry you don't like my opinion but I'm not going to shut up just because you want me too.

[Anonymous]

Only if I desperately needed childcare. But otherwise, no.

[Anonymous]

No, and there is no way MCPS should allow them in their school buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, and there is no way MCPS should allow them in their school buildings.

Why not? These companies pay rent and offer a service MoCo families and their kids need. Many wealthy families are hiring tutors for their children and/or doing pods. But not all families can afford this and parents need to work to keep a roof over their heads and support their kids and their kids need academic support during school hours.

Don’t make this harder for families than it already is. Using MCPS buildings for this purpose makes absolute sense and is the least that the county can do.

[Anonymous]

I have an EXTREMELY bad opinion of BAR-T. They forgot to take my child to mountainside once and had a private car take her there from the in school camps. I only found out because she told me. My daughter said the camps at the school were terrible and I believe her. It’s good they are offering this for parents who have no other choice- but I’d truly do it only if there was no other choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be concerned about it from a safety standpoint, but I don't think the distance learning component would be very effective. If you need the childcare it's better than nothing!

I’m not sure it would be dramatically less effective than DL at home where we only have so much of an ability to monitor things in real time while working.

+1
Also kids don’t learn well from their parents.

Only the method used for the majority of human history...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an EXTREMELY bad opinion of BAR-T. They forgot to take my child to mountainside once and had a private car take her there from the in school camps. I only found out because she told me. My daughter said the camps at the school were terrible and I believe her. It’s good they are offering this for parents who have no other choice- but I’d truly do it only if there was no other choice.

We’ve used Bar-T for aftercare for years and had positive experiences. We’ve never done their camps. I’m not sure if we will use them for this because of Covid concerns, but I wouldn’t hesitate otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I have a mixed opinion of Bar-T. Their staff is very caring. However, the children just do whatever they want sometimes, and it's risky. Also, I thought the closeness one staff member showed to a 5th grade boy was inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Any outbreaks at these places yet? Particularly since some of the are being held in schools deemed too dangerous because of the poor ventilation?

[Anonymous]

Only if you are okay with them getting infected and passing it to you.