Is any ES offering or planning to offer any form of outdoor lunch this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county no longer pays for monitors and we don’t have enough staff to cover outdoor lunch. It’s a logistical nightmare to shift gears when the weather doesn’t permit outdoor lunch; unless parents actually want to volunteer (and they don’t). So go ahead and waste your principals time complaining about something they have obviously considered and dealt with for the past two years.

MCPS still has federal covid money that is unspent. It was literally designed to support initiatives such as this. I get that it’s hard to hire people (everywhere), but just because some people are over covid does not mean these funds should not be allocated to support the one part of the day that is highest risk to students who are otherwise masking.

There are so many hundreds paraeducator jobs in the county. It's not like mcps isn't trying to fill these jobs.

I don’t think a lunch monitor position has the same hours or qualification requirements as a paraeducator. I also agree with the poster upthread that you don’t need double the number of staff to supervise outdoor lunch. There’s a ratio they need to meet, whether they are inside or outside.

I still don't understand, even if MCPS has the money, where you would find all these extra monitors to staff 130 elementary schools. Are there a bunch of SAHPs who are looking for these part-time, low pay positions? There's set-up/take down involved too. Ours had to solicit parent volunteers to help with that last year due to staffing issues, but few parents stepped up (I take that to mean that most didn't care about having outdoor lunch to begin with).

Why is it SAHP responsibility? It should be shared responsibility amongst all the parents demanding it. Its a silly demand without any other precautions like masking in place.

I’m just wondering who is expected to fill the positions that would be needed to provided the requested service. Some posters seem to think some casual volunteering would be all that’s needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And I also don’t think you need an entire second set of people. You have the existing staff who are supervising cafeteria lunch. I don’t see why those individuals can only supervise indoors, especially if there was a designated outdoor area where children were supervised last year. That makes no sense.

At least at my son's elementary school, last year for lunch they split up the grade and rotated them between three different eating areas (the cafeteria and two outdoor). It wasn't just that everyone was outside in one place instead of everyone inside the cafeteria. Our school doesn't have any outdoor space large enough to accommodate the whole grade at once (especially because while they're eating, a different grade is having recess). So you needed three separate sets of adults doing lunch monitoring duty.

That makes sense when there was at least masking and other precautions but its silly to demand outdoor lunch based off covid safety when there is no masking or other requirements so what is the benefit beyond its nice to be able to eat outdoors.

There’s not no masking. Some students are still masking. One-way masking with a well-fitted high quality mask is decently effective indoors. Unmasking entirely is 0 percent effective indoors. The people still masking are asking for a layer of mitigation with outdoor lunch. MCPS in their reopening guide encourages schools to make use of outdoor spaces for meals when possible. There are funds available that could help make this possible. For whatever reason, people who have stopped masking and don’t care about covid want to stop anyone else from protecting themselves too. I do not care if these people are maskless and want to eat indoors. Why are they trying to make it more difficult for people who would prefer to mask and eat outdoors? It does not affect them.

Do the schools have direct access to the funds you reference? If not you need to work on that first. If you want something that is outside the norm, you are going to have to put in the legwork to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And I also don’t think you need an entire second set of people. You have the existing staff who are supervising cafeteria lunch. I don’t see why those individuals can only supervise indoors, especially if there was a designated outdoor area where children were supervised last year. That makes no sense.

At least at my son's elementary school, last year for lunch they split up the grade and rotated them between three different eating areas (the cafeteria and two outdoor). It wasn't just that everyone was outside in one place instead of everyone inside the cafeteria. Our school doesn't have any outdoor space large enough to accommodate the whole grade at once (especially because while they're eating, a different grade is having recess). So you needed three separate sets of adults doing lunch monitoring duty.

That makes sense when there was at least masking and other precautions but its silly to demand outdoor lunch based off covid safety when there is no masking or other requirements so what is the benefit beyond its nice to be able to eat outdoors.

There’s not no masking. Some students are still masking. One-way masking with a well-fitted high quality mask is decently effective indoors. Unmasking entirely is 0 percent effective indoors. The people still masking are asking for a layer of mitigation with outdoor lunch. MCPS in their reopening guide encourages schools to make use of outdoor spaces for meals when possible. There are funds available that could help make this possible. For whatever reason, people who have stopped masking and don’t care about covid want to stop anyone else from protecting themselves too. I do not care if these people are maskless and want to eat indoors. Why are they trying to make it more difficult for people who would prefer to mask and eat outdoors? It does not affect them.

Do the schools have direct access to the funds you reference? If not you need to work on that first. If you want something that is outside the norm, you are going to have to put in the legwork to get it.

I think that is what the OP was literally trying to do. Get a sense of what the policy is and what is happening on the ground at other schools in the district so she can do “the legwork” and advocate with examples to back up her request. You don’t know what is/is not “the norm.” Lots of schools had outdoor lunch all last year (and options this year). Some did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And I also don’t think you need an entire second set of people. You have the existing staff who are supervising cafeteria lunch. I don’t see why those individuals can only supervise indoors, especially if there was a designated outdoor area where children were supervised last year. That makes no sense.

At least at my son's elementary school, last year for lunch they split up the grade and rotated them between three different eating areas (the cafeteria and two outdoor). It wasn't just that everyone was outside in one place instead of everyone inside the cafeteria. Our school doesn't have any outdoor space large enough to accommodate the whole grade at once (especially because while they're eating, a different grade is having recess). So you needed three separate sets of adults doing lunch monitoring duty.

That makes sense when there was at least masking and other precautions but its silly to demand outdoor lunch based off covid safety when there is no masking or other requirements so what is the benefit beyond its nice to be able to eat outdoors.

There’s not no masking. Some students are still masking. One-way masking with a well-fitted high quality mask is decently effective indoors. Unmasking entirely is 0 percent effective indoors. The people still masking are asking for a layer of mitigation with outdoor lunch. MCPS in their reopening guide encourages schools to make use of outdoor spaces for meals when possible. There are funds available that could help make this possible. For whatever reason, people who have stopped masking and don’t care about covid want to stop anyone else from protecting themselves too. I do not care if these people are maskless and want to eat indoors. Why are they trying to make it more difficult for people who would prefer to mask and eat outdoors? It does not affect them.

Do the schools have direct access to the funds you reference? If not you need to work on that first. If you want something that is outside the norm, you are going to have to put in the legwork to get it.

I think that is what the OP was literally trying to do. Get a sense of what the policy is and what is happening on the ground at other schools in the district so she can do “the legwork” and advocate with examples to back up her request. You don’t know what is/is not “the norm.” Lots of schools had outdoor lunch all last year (and options this year). Some did not.

Not OP, but I'd be curious: 1) how many ESs are offering outdoor lunch this year (compared to last year), 2) whether the entire grade eats outside or just a subset (with the rest in cafeteria), and 3) if it's a half inside/half outside model, how it is staffed- whether existing staff are picking up extra duties, new staff were hired, or if there is some reliance on volunteers. Just seems that for ES, there are more logistical hurdles than for MS/HS due to supervision needs, and sometimes space as the outside areas tend to be smaller.

[Anonymous]

My DS's elementary school is still planning on outdoor lunch starting in a week or two.

[Anonymous]

I was the one who posted earlier that last year my DS's school (Bayard Rustin ES) split each grade into three lunchtime cohorts who rotated between two outdoor locations and the cafeteria.

This year the Principal's mailing said: "We will return to the cafeteria-based dining for the 2022-2023 school year, but will continue to use outdoor dining spaces for lunch bunches, lunch groups, and celebrations."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've lost the ability to tell A+ trolling from clinically significant anxiety.

Ah, DCUM, never change! Luv too weaponize mental illness. Yes, a parent is interested in continuing a helpful accommodation that was provided all of last school year! Must be mental illness!

This is OP.

Let's see if I can make it clearer than I already have.

Outdoor lunch makes a difference in terms of COVID mitigation for everyone, but particularly for us and a number of other families.

I am under no illusions it's a panacea.

My child does mask otherwise.

It's very much a "nice-to-have," but I can accept it if it's truly not possible.

Weirdly, I am aware of the existence of Virtual Academy and of the option of pulling my kid out for lunch.

I am a sentient being and can think of more than one possible reason it can't be done-- e.g., not enough lunch monitors, parent volunteers not allowed, concerns about kids running off, etc. But thanks!

Principal is being unreasonable in that they (according to another parent) specifically stated that they will not even give the reason for their refusal and will not discuss possible solutions.

Parents are willing to volunteer, and have stated that, including the one who relayed this story to me-- and me, a repeated PTA board member who has volunteered at the school many times.

I don't know if that can be allowed. I don't know much of anything until I speak to the principal, which I will, this week.

Thanks to the people who relayed that this is a school-by-school decision, and that some are doing it. That helps.

If I have any additional question for those who aren't invested in wishing COVID on my immunocompromised family, it's whether parents are allowed to volunteer for this duty at your school. Thanks.

I am curious, though, if this is A+ trolling, is it because it's so subtle? Is it because I'm not asking for much, or really anything, except for information? Is it because I am being so reasonable about what I'm willing to accept? I'm not great at judging trolling. Would love to learn more about how to properly grade it.

Great! Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out now.

Get the parents together and present the principal with a plan to consider.

Make sure the parents are background checked, vaccinated and boosted. Explain what the parents will do with the kids when it rains. And be prepared to be the back up person if one of those parents do not show up.

Let us know how it works out!

Before you post, make sure you are in the correct forum. MCPS doesn't have a vaccinated and boosted requirement. Good luck finding the right forum.

In order to be a parent volunteer in MCPS, you are required to be vaccinated.

Parents who are advocating for outdoor lunch are likely going to be super Covid-cautious. They are likely already vaxxed and double boosted.

No one who is willing to send their kids in person school and volunteer in person is super covid-cautious. Be real. They are doing it for the theater and drama.

Majority of adults in MCPS are vaccinated with at least two doses. However, the vaccine is not stopping transmission which is the issue for those of us actually covid-cautious. Covid cautious are still masking, distancing, not traveling and not doing in person activities, especially in large groups.

If you are covid-careful at a minimum you'd be masking anytime indoors and testing weekly.

Just weekly? If kids are in in-person school you’d probably want to test more often than that.

Yeah, you might want to test each family member daily.

Also, we had Covid this summer and two of us had negative rapid tests. So, make sure you are getting weekly PCR tests if you are truly concerned. (Obviously I’m not, but it appears that some people are.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even distancing anymore at our elementary school. DS said that they're back to being scrunched in - 2 tables per class.

If you look at the pictures posted by MCPS and the schools there is zero distancing.

I mean, the CDC no longer recommends distancing.

The cdc failed us.

No they didn’t. How?

DP

Oh, the CDC failed our kids spectacularly. There is no doubt about that.

(I’m fine with indoor or outdoor lunch, but have no trust in the CDC after their nonsense.)

Yes, it was very bad under Trump.

[Anonymous]

Yes. My kids had it today. Weather permitting, they plan to have it most days.

[Anonymous]

Can people just name their ES? This is an anonymous forum. There is no way to find out who wrote what. I’ll start.

Stone Mill ES - no outdoor lunch. This was not an option last year either.

[Anonymous]

Forest Knolls had it last year but not this year. I don’t mind. Seemed like a logistical nightmare. And one time during lunch a neighbor’s house was surrounded by armed officers and all the kids went running back into the building. Don’t get the wrong idea - it’s a lovely neighborhood but this weird one-off example is one of many possible reasons why some of the things we did during Covid are unsustainable over the long haul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even distancing anymore at our elementary school. DS said that they're back to being scrunched in - 2 tables per class.

If you look at the pictures posted by MCPS and the schools there is zero distancing.

I mean, the CDC no longer recommends distancing.

The cdc failed us.

No they didn’t. How?

DP

Oh, the CDC failed our kids spectacularly. There is no doubt about that.

(I’m fine with indoor or outdoor lunch, but have no trust in the CDC after their nonsense.)

Yes, it was very bad under Trump.

At least they got on the right track with masking 2yos! Pretty strict when you think about it considering it was under the trump admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even distancing anymore at our elementary school. DS said that they're back to being scrunched in - 2 tables per class.

If you look at the pictures posted by MCPS and the schools there is zero distancing.

I mean, the CDC no longer recommends distancing.

The cdc failed us.

No they didn’t. How?

DP

Oh, the CDC failed our kids spectacularly. There is no doubt about that.

(I’m fine with indoor or outdoor lunch, but have no trust in the CDC after their nonsense.)

Yes, it was very bad under Trump.

And just as bad under Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county no longer pays for monitors and we don’t have enough staff to cover outdoor lunch. It’s a logistical nightmare to shift gears when the weather doesn’t permit outdoor lunch; unless parents actually want to volunteer (and they don’t). So go ahead and waste your principals time complaining about something they have obviously considered and dealt with for the past two years.

MCPS still has federal covid money that is unspent. It was literally designed to support initiatives such as this. I get that it’s hard to hire people (everywhere), but just because some people are over covid does not mean these funds should not be allocated to support the one part of the day that is highest risk to students who are otherwise masking.

There are so many hundreds paraeducator jobs in the county. It's not like mcps isn't trying to fill these jobs.

I don’t think a lunch monitor position has the same hours or qualification requirements as a paraeducator. I also agree with the poster upthread that you don’t need double the number of staff to supervise outdoor lunch. There’s a ratio they need to meet, whether they are inside or outside.

I still don't understand, even if MCPS has the money, where you would find all these extra monitors to staff 130 elementary schools. Are there a bunch of SAHPs who are looking for these part-time, low pay positions? There's set-up/take down involved too. Ours had to solicit parent volunteers to help with that last year due to staffing issues, but few parents stepped up (I take that to mean that most didn't care about having outdoor lunch to begin with).

Why is it SAHP responsibility? It should be shared responsibility amongst all the parents demanding it. Its a silly demand without any other precautions like masking in place.

I’m just wondering who is expected to fill the positions that would be needed to provided the requested service. Some posters seem to think some casual volunteering would be all that’s needed.

How about you do it if you want outdoor lunch. Simple solution. There is zero masking or precautions. What is the point of outdoor lunch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even distancing anymore at our elementary school. DS said that they're back to being scrunched in - 2 tables per class.

If you look at the pictures posted by MCPS and the schools there is zero distancing.

I mean, the CDC no longer recommends distancing.

The cdc failed us.

No they didn’t. How?

DP

Oh, the CDC failed our kids spectacularly. There is no doubt about that.

(I’m fine with indoor or outdoor lunch, but have no trust in the CDC after their nonsense.)

Yes, it was very bad under Trump.

Eh, it’s actually been worse under Biden.