Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
If you don't think the plan is a lie, please explain how you use an AAC device remotely. I'm sure there are a lot of parents, special educators, and paras that would love to know your secret.
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
+2 Why does it bother you that students will spend a few snow days learning virtually during the most important time of the school year rather than watch videos in person at the end of June? Do you have some sort of business that will suffer if virtual learning occurs?
Kids who already struggle with coursework risk falling behind and never being able to catch back up.
If virtual plans include remediation for kids who cannot learn effectively remotely, that would be one thing. But they don't. And based on what we saw after covid, even if the school said they would provide remedial services, we have no reason to believe that they would follow through with that.
So the person who lied about reading four virtual learning plans and said they were out to screw kids, who had never even read one, says that virtual learning shouldn't be provided, because schools are lying about any accommodations that they say would provide to kids with special needs. Um, ok.
All the kids should just have no instruction, because you believe everyone is lying. Possibly because you lie so easily yourself.
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
Typical MoCo parents trying to pretend kids with special needs don't exist. I know you long for the days when they were segregated into self-contained classrooms. Except now you won't even pay for those!
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
You mean like the Baltimore plan approved by MSDE posted above for which your only criticism was--"they must be lying about providing accommodations."
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
You mean like the Baltimore plan approved by MSDE posted above for which your only criticism was--"they must be lying about providing accommodations."
They are lying. Again, explain how you use an AAC device remotely.
Anonymous wrote:Typical MoCo parents trying to pretend kids with special needs don't exist. I know you long for the days when they were segregated into self-contained classrooms. Except now you won't even pay for those!
Who is pretending they don't exist? If you had bother to look at a virtual learning plan and what MSDE required for approval, you would have seen that it requires a section on accommodations for children with special needs. You sound like an MCPS staffer who just doesn't want to do any work during the snow days and prefers that half days be added in June when instructional time is over.
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
You mean like the Baltimore plan approved by MSDE posted above for which your only criticism was--"they must be lying about providing accommodations."
They are lying. Again, explain how you use an AAC device remotely.
Please send a complaint to MSDE about these lies and let us know how they respond. Because the only proven liar we can see here is you, claiming that you even know what is in a virtual learning plan.
The simple truth is, you don't actually care if the school accommodates kids with special needs. That's not unique to virtual. I'm sure you don't care about those students in-person, too.
But if you actually want virtual to come back, you're going to need to come up with plan for them.
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
You mean like the Baltimore plan approved by MSDE posted above for which your only criticism was--"they must be lying about providing accommodations."
They are lying. Again, explain how you use an AAC device remotely.
Please send a complaint to MSDE about these lies and let us know how they respond. Because the only proven liar we can see here is you, claiming that you even know what is in a virtual learning plan.
Just answer the question. How do you use an AAC device remotely?
Here's the thing. The status quo is no virtual. The superintendent and BoE seem to also be unsupportive of virtual. You're facing an uphill battle. Ignoring the need of a large population-- young kids-- and a federally-protected group of kids-- students with special needs-- isn't going to help your cause.
Anonymous wrote:The simple truth is, you don't actually care if the school accommodates kids with special needs. That's not unique to virtual. I'm sure you don't care about those students in-person, too.
But if you actually want virtual to come back, you're going to need to come up with plan for them.
I'm not employed by MCPS--I'm just a parent who reads more than you, despite your negative opinions on things you've never read. If you knew anything about virtual learning plans, you would know they are drawn up by professional paid staff, not parents.
I have written my BoE members to ask why MCPS didn't have a virtual learning plan approved by MSDE as other Maryland districts did, that would have allowed them to offer the option of virtual learning, like thousands of schools across the countries did last week.
Anonymous wrote:The simple truth is, you don't actually care if the school accommodates kids with special needs. That's not unique to virtual. I'm sure you don't care about those students in-person, too.
But if you actually want virtual to come back, you're going to need to come up with plan for them.
I'm not employed by MCPS--I'm just a parent who reads more than you, despite your negative opinions on things you've never read. If you knew anything about virtual learning plans, you would know they are drawn up by professional paid staff, not parents.
I have written my BoE members to ask why MCPS didn't have a virtual learning plan approved by MSDE as other Maryland districts did, that would have allowed them to offer the option of virtual learning, like thousands of schools across the countries did last week.
They don't seem to think virtual is a good idea either. If you want to see it happen, you're going to need to come up with a proposal. You're obviously not going tomorrow be responsible for implementing it, or even fleshing it out, but you haven't been able to come up with anything for accommodating young kids or students with special needs. Nothing at all.
How can you be surprised we're not doing it if you can't come up with a way to do it?
Alexandria City Public Schools: Virtual learning
Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday.
Arlington County Public Schools: Closed; two-hour delay Tuesday
Calvert County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Charles County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Culpeper County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
D.C. Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fairfax County Public Schools: Closed
Falls Church City Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Fauquier County Public Schools: Closed
Howard County Public Schools: Two-hour delay Monday and Tuesday
Loudoun County Public Schools: Two-hour delay
Montgomery County Public Schools: Closed
Pr. George’s County Public Schools: Two-hour delay; Code Orange
Prince William County Public Schools: Closed
Spotsylvania County Public Schools: Remote learning Monday and Tuesday; 12-month employees to report on time.
Stafford County Public Schools: Closed
Nah, but thanks for posting info we all already knew?
If you already knew this, why are people constantly posting that it's impossible to open or offer virtual learning because of kids with IEPs or equity or snow? Nearly every other school district is open or virtual tomorrow.
BLAME YOURSELF. PARENTS are why MCPS won't pivot to virtual.
Where did parents say they would prefer to have their kids shortchanged with well under the required 180 days instead of having virtual instruction?
Where did parents tell the MCPS central office not to submit a contingency virtual learning plan like so many other Maryland school districts did?
McPS should blame itself for its inability to function..
Parents don't want virtual. They want real school days.
That's what you want. We want our kids to get an education - in person or virtual, but virtual with live teaching.
You wouldn't get it. Not enough students would show up. Even fewer would participate. No new material could be covered.
You don't know that. All we have is last year's example where MCPS added half days in end June and showed videos and few kids showed up because MCPS encouraged them now to show up because "they knew people had already made other plans".
Of course we know kids wouldn't join and participate.
And that's putting aside the fact that no one has come up with a plausible way to either provide special education supports and services during those days, or provide compensatory services after the fact. You just want to forget about those students, just like you did during covid.
We get it. So you'd rather everyone have zero instruction and lose out on instructional time. MCPS can apply for a waiver to offer 177 days of instruction rather than 180, add in some half days in June and encourage parents not to send their kids, and unlike the other DC area schools that were open last week and are open next week, MCPS staff can get some extra days off.
You're not getting virtual. You know that. If you actually cared about instructional time, then you'd pressure the BoE and Taylor to use the contingency days we have. The real ones.
That you're not interested in doing that suggests education is not what's really motivating you.
You have no idea what is motivating an anonymous poster. And no, I don't agree with you that virtual learning is not an option-- my kids did almost a year of virtual learning during the COVID years, and I know MCPS can do it.
I don't work for MCPS, and only learned that MCPS failed to submit a virtual learning plan for approval to the state of Maryland yesterday, unlike many other Maryland schools. MCPS central office could do its job and try to submit it now, because there are two months of winter left and it's probable that there are more snow days.
We know it isn't an option this year. There isn't time to put together a plan and seek public comment. That would take at least a couple of months for a real plan and a meaningful public comment period.
So if education is your priority, you'd be advocating for March 20, April 15, and June 18 make up days. Ideally Presidents' Day too.
But the pp already said the quiet part out loud by admitting she just doesn't want make up days.
I'm not sure what you're babbling about, because there are multiple people posting on this thread, yet you seem to think you're talking to a single person and know their motivations. I am happy to have makeup days. I have read that the teachers union won't allow the makeup days you're suggesting to occur (other than June 18).
I'm also not going to give MCPS a pass for not having a plan for virtual learning after they had that mess with snow days less year. Other Maryland school districts prepared one. Let MCPS start preparing now and seek public comment. It doesn't need to take months if Taylor makes it a priority, which he should because parents are pissed at how incompetently MCPS is being run.
We'll have more snow days before March is out, and MCPS shouldn't continue to act like a teenager who forgot to do their homework.
The union doesn't have to agree to make up days. They're already in the calendar.
No one has even been able to provide a plausible plan for lower elementary or special education. Putting together a plan, even hastily, would take weeks. Another month for public comment and a hearing. That puts us at the end of March. Implementing the plan would also cost money for equipment, supporting services, and compensatory services. We'd also need to make sure those supporting and compensatory services were even available. There simply isn't time.
Real make-up days are the only option for this year.
There was a lengthy thread last week about using the 2 Presidents' days holidays as makeup days, on a different thread, and people who said they were teachers had said they had already made plans to be out of town, and that there was no way they would teach and that the union would never allow it.
Fine with me if they use those make up days. I just don't think it is going to happen, because as one teacher posted "they have Broadway tickets they've paid for, and there's no way they're cancelling their day off."
And putting together a virtual learning plan is something MCPS should be doing anyway, like other school districts, starting now. You may not like virtual learning, but I suspect for weeks like this one, most parents would much rather their =kid get some instruction, than be part of an unfortunate year where MCPS sought a waiver to allow 175 days of instruction, because they couldn't be bothered to do a virtual learning plan.
They can copy paste the virtual learning plan from the ones that Baltimore or Anne Arundel submitted and change the name. It would probably be better written than most of the stuff MCPS produces.
Presidents' Day isn't a contingency day. Between that and the short turnaround time, it would be hard to use it. The union probably could kill it by demanding impact bargaining. The same isn't true of the real contingency days.
I suspect there's a big divide between high school and elementary school families when it comes to virtual. Special education, too. How are kids in child care going to participate in virtual? Neither has a chromebook. At least, not one they're able to bring home.
They can have class during child care - they had pods and other child care during covid. Or, they can make up the work at home with parents or guardians.
This is one of the many reasons virtual was terrible during covid. How do you expect virtual to work with a set 30-50 kids? How parents cover lessons with only a few waking hours left in the day and no lesson plans? How do you expect kids with special needs to learn when their needs aren't being met?
Virtual might work for some, but in-person works for all. You just don't care about everyone else.
Ok, explain to us how we're going to make up four in-person days with the remainder of the school calendar. What makeup days would you use?
Three real make-up days is far superior to virtual.
We can't do virtual this year anyway, so it's a moot point. We should modify the calendar next year to build more days in. We should also institute a policy of automatically using the next available contingency day.
If you really want to push for virtual, you should at least come up with a plan that addresses lower elementary, kids in child care, and kids with special needs.
I don't work for MCPS. I am a parent with a job that pays taxes to pay to pay MCPS salaries and for MCPS's $3bn budget. I am not coming up with a plan to address lower elementary, kids in child care and kids with special needs.
But if you really think it's beyond the capabilities of MCPS to come up with such a plan, I'm sure you can copy paste it from the ones that Anne Arundel and Baltimore submitted to the state so they could hold virtual learning last week.
Or I'm sure MCPS could use their Metro Cards and travel to Alexandria public schools and see how they've been doing it for the last three days. Or take the bus to NYC and see how NYC public schools did virtual learning for a school district 10x the size of MCPS.
There's no shortage of examples that MCPS could use. Don't ask us to do the job of paid staffers who were too lazy to submit a virtual learning plan to the State.
Their plans appear to be a repeat of the covid-era plan of "screw 'em."
If you want to push for virtual, you're going to need to come up with something better than that.
What element of the Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Alexandria, and NYC virtual learning plans appear to say "screw em"? Did you read them? Why do you conclude that virtual learning is better than no learning at all?
Please explain to me then how they accomodate the needs of those students.
Please explain to me what you find problematic of those plans, and why you think they disregard the needs of those students. Did you read them?
I don't see their full plans, but the information on their websites make no reference to accommodations for children in child care or students with special needs. That sounds like disregarding them to me.
Sounds like you're making a lot of conclusions without actually reading the plans (which fall under the jurisdiction of three different states). But you are ready to make the conclusion that these plans are out to "screw em" because you just don't like virtual learning. I hope you're not a teacher, because you seem to lack intellectual rigor.
Again, what's your plan? You haven't suggested anything at all.
I'm suggesting we copy elements of the other fine school districts that made a plan. But you said that wasn't possible because you looked at these four school districts and your conclusion was that these plans are out to screw kids (when you really didn't read them at all.)
What elements do you want to copy regarding lower elementary and students with special needs? You keep avoiding that.
You can't point to any problems with them because you have no idea what's in them. I trust the Governments of New York, Maryland and Virginia who approved the virtual learning plans for the four school districts I mention, and know they have more integrity than someone who says that a plan they haven't even read is out to screw children, including children with special needs, just because you have an agenda.
If they're so good, then why won't you say what they are? Seems weird to hide whatever good ideas they allegedly have.
They're posted online--the Internet is not a hidden information source if you're able to read and comprehend words. Here's one for Baltimore County--which includes sections on accommodations for kids with IEPs and how instruction is differentiated by age. Now that we've made it super easy to find, since you were too lazy to read one, you can explain how it is screwing kids?
https://www.scribd.com/document/669575364/MSDE-Virtual-Day-Instruction-Plan-SY2023-2024-072623#from_embed
Look at the year.
But, separate from that, look at the accommodations section. It doesn't say anything useful, and what it does say is clearly false. There are a variety of supplemental aids, supports, and services that cannot be provided virtually. AAC tools, for instance, are incredibly common supplemental aids. What are they going to do instead? What about students who require repetition and redirection from a paraeducator?
That's exactly the sort of thing that tells me their plan is "screw 'em".
As a parent you help and there are paras online to help too.
+1 First you said that the Baltimore and Anne Arundel virtual learning plans didn't contain any information about accommodations for special needs students, which shows that no one should believe anything you write since it's a required section from MSDE and you have never seen a plan in your life until the PP posted one.
Having been proved wrong about that, you say that what's written and submitted by a school district and posted online for all to see is "clearly false?" You may need to examine why you want to lie about things you clearly know nothing about.
I said their web sites don't.
And it makes sense why, given the one plan you've been able to find doesn't actually say how they'll provide supports and services. It completely ignores the broad range of supplemental aids and services that cannot be provided virtually. How do you use an AAC device when you don't have it?
No, you said you read all four school district virtual learning plans and your conclusion was that they were all about screwing kids, and when asked to explain why they were screwing kids, you said it was our job to explain to you why the plans were good. But you never had read any of them. That's pretty disturbing that you would jump to a conclusion that school districts are out to screw kids without having read a thing.
If a 7th grader reasoned the way you did, I would be disappointed, but in an adult to lie and slander based on things you haven't even read is unacceptable.
And you've been blindly assuming their plans are fine.
Are you going to post the others since you think they're such great examples?
Why bother? You said you already read them and concluded they were out to screw kids. Why don't you post them for us? Unless you were lying (again).
In other words, you don't want to provide an actual plan because you know it would get ripped to shreds.
You mean like the Baltimore plan approved by MSDE posted above for which your only criticism was--"they must be lying about providing accommodations."
They are lying. Again, explain how you use an AAC device remotely.
Please send a complaint to MSDE about these lies and let us know how they respond. Because the only proven liar we can see here is you, claiming that you even know what is in a virtual learning plan.
Just answer the question. How do you use an AAC device remotely?
Do you even know what they are?
I know that less than 1% of MCPS students use them. Is your argument is that because 100% of supports available in a school setting to non-verbal children can't be provided remotely, that NONE of the 100K+ MCPS students should have any virtual education?
These virtual learning policies are imperfect tools during temporary weather events. But you'd rather that no instruction occur at all in the name of "equity" and that days be added in June when it's too late to provide instruction.
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}