All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

[Anonymous]

Lord the entitlement and the lack of ability to see other perspectives is so astounding.

Man I know what the teachers are talking about now regarding the intense entitlement of some parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. Also, while she is accusing others of denial, she is in denial of the real practical obstacles to schools providing what she wants, which have indeed been repeated ad nauseam because the pro-virtual poster(s) - see, we can do that too! - won’t acknowledge them. Disingenuous all around.

[Anonymous]

The most jarring parts are that she doesn't comprehend, despite it being repeated ad nauseum, the resources involved, and that she believes she's got some sort of moral high ground here.

[Anonymous]

Also, there are literally no "anti-virtual" parents. There are parents that are saying, over and over, go and do virtual. No one cares if you go do virtual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, there are literally no "anti-virtual" parents. There are parents that are saying, over and over, go and do virtual. No one cares if you go do virtual.

+1 Go and do what you want, but don't ruin in-person for the rest of us. How selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

Well put

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. Also, while she is accusing others of denial, she is in denial of the real practical obstacles to schools providing what she wants, which have indeed been repeated ad nauseam because the pro-virtual poster(s) - see, we can do that too! - won’t acknowledge them. Disingenuous all around.

These people don't care. They absolutely know that this would lead to them having an online class with 4 kids and everyone else having classes over 35. They are perfectly happy ruining education for other children if this gets them the slightest advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

Well put

Oh come on. Its a NEIGHBORHOOD school, you shriveled walnut. They can always go back to it later. This namby-pamby "must have a connection" is really not a high priority during an educational emergency. Are these parents so weakly tied to their communities that 9 months of going to another school would ruin it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. You could homeschool or go to a virtual school as long as you want then send your kid back to your neighborhood school when you "feel" ready. The only people who would lose their spots are those who lotteried in, which means they don't go to neighborhood schools.

Just stop ignoring evidence that it's too much of a strain for a single school to offer both virtual and in-person at the same time. You're pretending that your plan wouldn't hurt in-person learners when it's clear that it would by draining resources to run a separate school program for each grade. Plus it would hurt kids because virtual learning wasn't as effective for most students.

If you're really concerned about dire public health risks due to in-person school, then "school spirit" shouldn't even be a priority for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. You could homeschool or go to a virtual school as long as you want then send your kid back to your neighborhood school when you "feel" ready. The only people who would lose their spots are those who lotteried in, which means they don't go to neighborhood schools.

Just stop ignoring evidence that it's too much of a strain for a single school to offer both virtual and in-person at the same time. You're pretending that your plan wouldn't hurt in-person learners when it's clear that it would by draining resources to run a separate school program for each grade. Plus it would hurt kids because virtual learning wasn't as effective for most students.

If you're really concerned about dire public health risks due to in-person school, then "school spirit" shouldn't even be a priority for you.

This argument that it’s too much of a “strain” is ridiculous. Schools literally did this in the spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. You could homeschool or go to a virtual school as long as you want then send your kid back to your neighborhood school when you "feel" ready. The only people who would lose their spots are those who lotteried in, which means they don't go to neighborhood schools.

Just stop ignoring evidence that it's too much of a strain for a single school to offer both virtual and in-person at the same time. You're pretending that your plan wouldn't hurt in-person learners when it's clear that it would by draining resources to run a separate school program for each grade. Plus it would hurt kids because virtual learning wasn't as effective for most students.

If you're really concerned about dire public health risks due to in-person school, then "school spirit" shouldn't even be a priority for you.

This argument that it’s too much of a “strain” is ridiculous. Schools literally did this in the spring.

They did it badly, and as teachers upthread tell you, it was tremendously difficult. But keep ignoring teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. You could homeschool or go to a virtual school as long as you want then send your kid back to your neighborhood school when you "feel" ready. The only people who would lose their spots are those who lotteried in, which means they don't go to neighborhood schools.

Just stop ignoring evidence that it's too much of a strain for a single school to offer both virtual and in-person at the same time. You're pretending that your plan wouldn't hurt in-person learners when it's clear that it would by draining resources to run a separate school program for each grade. Plus it would hurt kids because virtual learning wasn't as effective for most students.

If you're really concerned about dire public health risks due to in-person school, then "school spirit" shouldn't even be a priority for you.

So the only people who should have a choice to protect their children as they see fit are parents who have a good neighborhood school option: Wards 2, 3 and 6. Everyone else should have to lose their charter or OOB spot. Seems equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This argument that it’s too much of a “strain” is ridiculous. Schools literally did this in the spring.

Can you share which schools in DC had students in class 5 days a week on campus while also running a full time virtual program for those that didn't want to attend. And, when you share that info can you include how you know it went well or was a good experience for either group?

Our school was hybrid for a couple months. Never had all kids back and never for more than a couple days. And, for those that chose not to come back they ended up getting the same lesson twice a week because of how the schedule went. The school just wasn't able to figure out how to have hybrid and full time virtual really work but since it was 2 months, just another Covid whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public schools provide in person education. If you want your kids at home, there are lots of options. Homeschool with an online program. Then you get an individualized education and you get to keep your kids home.

Don’t throw the rest of us under the bus. I have to work and my kids have to go to school. Last year was a disaster for us.

Having a virtual option does not hurt you. In fact, it keeps you safer by getting kids out of the classroom.

DP. Please go back and read the thread. There is plenty of explanation of how it does hurt everyone if every school has to provide a virtual option.

There’s plenty of histrionics but no actual explanation. The bottom line is people are afraid to acknowledge the new threat that Delta poses or the responsible ways we should respond because they’re tired of the pandemic and they got a taste of freedom in June. The game has changed and this is a modest request in response to this new reality.

Thank you. It feels great to hear someone else say this.

One of the reactive 'feel free to go away" comments became more sophisticated from being repeated ad nauseam. Eventually, the anti-virtual poster(s) stated that those concerned parents asking for a temporary virtual option until vaccines, will never actually feel safe enough to send kids back ("goal posts' etc), and will keep asking for virtual for the next 2-3 years, so those kids might as well go to a centralized virtual option and stay there. Well, for one, that's not true. But also, that would be quite problematic.

It would be terrible for the kids and it would be terrible for the neighborhood schools.

A temporary flexible virtual option with a link to a physical school increases the chances that students will not retreat forever from in-person school. It would be terrible policy to drive the healthy students of cautious families to a permanent centralized virtual school, because it runs the risk that some or many won't seek to go back to a physical school (particularly, as some sneered, if they lose the relationship with their lotteried slots), even when vaccinated and even when it's safe. Unless, that is, DCPS wanted to rush towards the 'learning of the future' and shed some kids from its physical buildings in the medium term, which I doubt.

Losing local students to a centralized virtual school would hurt the neighborhood schools' enrollment, and destabilize them in a deeper way than allowing some kids to be full-virtual, knowing that it's more than likely that the schools would have to set up and pivot some classes to virtual on and off anyway for a few weeks at a time.

So as you said, a lot of this disagreement is from some cautious parents believing, and the anti-virtual denying, that there will be inevitable back and forth to virtual anyway until kids are fully vaccinated.

This is disingenuous Bc you aren’t at your neighborhood school. If you were you could just homeschool.

This. You could homeschool or go to a virtual school as long as you want then send your kid back to your neighborhood school when you "feel" ready. The only people who would lose their spots are those who lotteried in, which means they don't go to neighborhood schools.

Just stop ignoring evidence that it's too much of a strain for a single school to offer both virtual and in-person at the same time. You're pretending that your plan wouldn't hurt in-person learners when it's clear that it would by draining resources to run a separate school program for each grade. Plus it would hurt kids because virtual learning wasn't as effective for most students.

If you're really concerned about dire public health risks due to in-person school, then "school spirit" shouldn't even be a priority for you.

So the only people who should have a choice to protect their children as they see fit are parents who have a good neighborhood school option: Wards 2, 3 and 6. Everyone else should have to lose their charter or OOB spot. Seems equitable.

This is getting pathetic. You have a choice to "protect your children". You can do virtual. You can homeschool. Good god. If you are so worried about your children's health you wouldn't think twice about your charter slot.

It's gross that you are reaching for the equity argument.