Snow Make-up Day is April 22nd - Asynchronous

[Anonymous]

I love how most people posting here don’t bat an eye when their kid misses school for vacations, etc. but are in uproar about loss of instructional time to make up a snow day. Gimme a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how most people posting here don’t bat an eye when their kid misses school for vacations, etc. but are in uproar about loss of instructional time to make up a snow day. Gimme a break.

I personally don't care about it since this was already a day kids were gonna have off anyway. But let's not pretend like any genuine instruction or learning is going to happen on this virtual asynchronous day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like smoke and mirror BS so the lazy teachers (not the dedicated ones) don't have to teach.

Take it up with MSDE. They approved asynchronous days.

It was always a bad idea, but this in particular was not what they had in mind. MSDE needs to change this. Districts like MCPS can't be trusted with virtual options.

This is exactly what they had in mind. Up to 8 virtual days can be repurposed from inclement weather. 3 of those virtual days can be asynchronous. I think you'll find many more in support if this than those against. Very few want to keep adding on in-person days in June.

Virtual days were intended for snow days when students could not make it to schools. Not for days when teachers didn't want to teach.

It’s still not being used for that purpose so you don’t have to worry.

When a teacher —even an ill one— can unilaterally decide they want a particular day to be asynchronous, I’ll back your complaint.

That's what just happened. Given that this is coming out from MCEA first, it's pretty clear it was the union's decision to have a bogus "asynchronous" day rather than using April 10 or 22nd as an instructional day.

The union doesn’t decide that. Hilarious that you think it can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like smoke and mirror BS so the lazy teachers (not the dedicated ones) don't have to teach.

Take it up with MSDE. They approved asynchronous days.

It was always a bad idea, but this in particular was not what they had in mind. MSDE needs to change this. Districts like MCPS can't be trusted with virtual options.

This is exactly what they had in mind. Up to 8 virtual days can be repurposed from inclement weather. 3 of those virtual days can be asynchronous. I think you'll find many more in support if this than those against. Very few want to keep adding on in-person days in June.

Virtual days were intended for snow days when students could not make it to schools. Not for days when teachers didn't want to teach.

It’s still not being used for that purpose so you don’t have to worry.

When a teacher —even an ill one— can unilaterally decide they want a particular day to be asynchronous, I’ll back your complaint.

That's what just happened. Given that this is coming out from MCEA first, it's pretty clear it was the union's decision to have a bogus "asynchronous" day rather than using April 10 or 22nd as an instructional day.

The union doesn’t decide that. Hilarious that you think it can.

Of course they did. MCEA wasn't going to agree to add back an instructional day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like smoke and mirror BS so the lazy teachers (not the dedicated ones) don't have to teach.

Take it up with MSDE. They approved asynchronous days.

It was always a bad idea, but this in particular was not what they had in mind. MSDE needs to change this. Districts like MCPS can't be trusted with virtual options.

This is exactly what they had in mind. Up to 8 virtual days can be repurposed from inclement weather. 3 of those virtual days can be asynchronous. I think you'll find many more in support if this than those against. Very few want to keep adding on in-person days in June.

Virtual days were intended for snow days when students could not make it to schools. Not for days when teachers didn't want to teach.

It’s still not being used for that purpose so you don’t have to worry.

When a teacher —even an ill one— can unilaterally decide they want a particular day to be asynchronous, I’ll back your complaint.

That's what just happened. Given that this is coming out from MCEA first, it's pretty clear it was the union's decision to have a bogus "asynchronous" day rather than using April 10 or 22nd as an instructional day.

The union doesn’t decide that. Hilarious that you think it can.

Of course they did. MCEA wasn't going to agree to add back an instructional day.

You truly don’t understand that teachers are already contractually obligated to makeup days? No further agreement was needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like smoke and mirror BS so the lazy teachers (not the dedicated ones) don't have to teach.

Take it up with MSDE. They approved asynchronous days.

It was always a bad idea, but this in particular was not what they had in mind. MSDE needs to change this. Districts like MCPS can't be trusted with virtual options.

This is exactly what they had in mind. Up to 8 virtual days can be repurposed from inclement weather. 3 of those virtual days can be asynchronous. I think you'll find many more in support if this than those against. Very few want to keep adding on in-person days in June.

Virtual days were intended for snow days when students could not make it to schools. Not for days when teachers didn't want to teach.

It’s still not being used for that purpose so you don’t have to worry.

When a teacher —even an ill one— can unilaterally decide they want a particular day to be asynchronous, I’ll back your complaint.

That's what just happened. Given that this is coming out from MCEA first, it's pretty clear it was the union's decision to have a bogus "asynchronous" day rather than using April 10 or 22nd as an instructional day.

The union doesn’t decide that. Hilarious that you think it can.

Of course they did. MCEA wasn't going to agree to add back an instructional day.

You truly don’t understand that teachers are already contractually obligated to makeup days? No further agreement was needed.

Don't be obtuse. No, a contract change wasn't necessary, but clearly MCEA was consulted for their approval.

[Anonymous]

I wish this MCEA thing dropped dead.

[Anonymous]

Um, MCEA doesn't make these announcements. This isn't official so don't go changing any vacation plans. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, MCEA doesn't make these announcements. This isn't official so don't go changing any vacation plans. What a joke.

They're not supposed to, yet they did. Even though they presumably know that they're legally prohibited from negotiating on the school calendar. But that is obviously what happened here.

But no one is going to go after MCEA for that because they've got the largest political action committee in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, MCEA doesn't make these announcements. This isn't official so don't go changing any vacation plans. What a joke.

They're not supposed to, yet they did. Even though they presumably know that they're legally prohibited from negotiating on the school calendar. But that is obviously what happened here.

But no one is going to go after MCEA for that because they've got the largest political action committee in the county.

Where is this legal prohibition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, MCEA doesn't make these announcements. This isn't official so don't go changing any vacation plans. What a joke.

They're not supposed to, yet they did. Even though they presumably know that they're legally prohibited from negotiating on the school calendar. But that is obviously what happened here.

But no one is going to go after MCEA for that because they've got the largest political action committee in the county.

Where is this legal prohibition?

Maryland Education Code § 6-408, Subsection (a)(3)
"A public school employer may not negotiate the school calendar, the maximum number of students assigned to a class, or any matter that is precluded by applicable statutory law."

I believe this provision was added to explicitly address a situation that arose between MCEA and MCPS where MCEA was previously improperly negotiating on the calendar in the 1980s. See: Montgomery Co. Ed. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ, 311 Md. 303, 534 A.2d 980 (Md. 1987)

[Anonymous]

But what's the negotiation that supposedly took place? April 22nd was already on the calendar as "Professional Development/Possible Make up Day," and that hasn't changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like smoke and mirror BS so the lazy teachers (not the dedicated ones) don't have to teach.

I know right? Eff those lazy teachers! I already ordered a bunch of "Dumb Lazy Teacher" mugs for them on Temu for end of the year gifts.

OMG. Can I have one? Please make sure it’s signed: “The Loving Parents of DCUM” 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But what's the negotiation that supposedly took place? April 22nd was already on the calendar as "Professional Development/Possible Make up Day," and that hasn't changed.

You think MCEA just made this up? Or do you think MCPS started, and effectively finished, negotiations with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what's the negotiation that supposedly took place? April 22nd was already on the calendar as "Professional Development/Possible Make up Day," and that hasn't changed.

You think MCEA just made this up? Or do you think MCPS started, and effectively finished, negotiations with them?

What was negotiated? And how do you know?