What are your school’s term 3 plans??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

Get ready then. Because it’s coming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

I believed in prioritizing highest needs kids (I work in Medicaid and see those kids every day) but there are also a whole lot more kids who are beginning to struggle academically and from mental health concerns.

I have kids in a JKLM school and we probably have 15% of kids who who make the first cut for being high needs. Then you have 20% of kids who are podded up in spectacular fashion and academically and socially aren't missing a beat during this pandemic (in fact they are thriving). I have friends like this--families
have kids in groups of 6 with tutors who are actual teachers. They are THRIVING.

But between the two you have about 70% of kids who are struggling in one way or another. I have one of these. She is doing ok but her grades are slipping, she's becoming morose and she's lonely and bored and just sad. Not every day but when you look at the composite person vs. who she was last spring there's a striking change.
Kids just aren't meant to be solo creatures.
She would benefit enormously from a hybrid model. You are slowing hurting a TON of kids like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

I believed in prioritizing highest needs kids (I work in Medicaid and see those kids every day) but there are also a whole lot more kids who are beginning to struggle academically and from mental health concerns.

I have kids in a JKLM school and we probably have 15% of kids who who make the first cut for being high needs. Then you have 20% of kids who are podded up in spectacular fashion and academically and socially aren't missing a beat during this pandemic (in fact they are thriving). I have friends like this--families
have kids in groups of 6 with tutors who are actual teachers. They are THRIVING.

But between the two you have about 70% of kids who are struggling in one way or another. I have one of these. She is doing ok but her grades are slipping, she's becoming morose and she's lonely and bored and just sad. Not every day but when you look at the composite person vs. who she was last spring there's a striking change.
Kids just aren't meant to be solo creatures.
She would benefit enormously from a hybrid model. You are slowing hurting a TON of kids like this.

My school is a JKLM and our hybrid proposal was rejected. Please start getting on central office about this. Schools are trying and now central office won’t allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

And by "parent cronies" you mean parents who didn't agree with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

[Anonymous]

They are starting work on our HVAC in mid-January and it won’t be done until the end of the year. (This is in just one of our buildings, but still, WTF.) Anyway, I’m not optimistic my kids are going back this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

You can believe its smoke and mirrors and rumors all you want. It’s true. And you can blame the union all you want. Dcps f’ed this up from the get go. I have kid with special needs, I get it. But let’s not act like DCPS has ever really cared about kids with ieps....they haven’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

Nobody is blaming things on special needs kids. I know it is politically incorrect to say that anything less than everything should go to the neediest group, but allocating public resources is a compromise for everyone.

I mainly blame DC for making DCPS one of the top social services providers. Those social services should absolutely be provided, but the chief provider should be organizations whose chief mission is social service, not the organization tasked with providing education to (all!) 40,000 public school kids. How to make allocation decisions would be more straightforward and more effective is the problems and the solution providers were more clearly aligned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

You can believe its smoke and mirrors and rumors all you want. It’s true. And you can blame the union all you want. Dcps f’ed this up from the get go. I have kid with special needs, I get it. But let’s not act like DCPS has ever really cared about kids with ieps....they haven’t.

I have actually gotten much better services from DCPS central than our IB. Early stages eval, private daycare IEP, and then a really strong IEP to transition to IB K. Our IB IEP teams routinely deny eligibility for kids who need it, in contrast. So at this point I’m going to go with DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

Nobody is blaming things on special needs kids. I know it is politically incorrect to say that anything less than everything should go to the neediest group, but allocating public resources is a compromise for everyone.

I mainly blame DC for making DCPS one of the top social services providers. Those social services should absolutely be provided, but the chief provider should be organizations whose chief mission is social service, not the organization tasked with providing education to (all!) 40,000 public school kids. How to make allocation decisions would be more straightforward and more effective is the problems and the solution providers were more clearly aligned.

well, you’re wrong. the model of schools providing wrap-around services is well established here. and we’re talking about the core function of educating kids right now anyway - the whole “schools should not provide social services” is a canard on many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

I believed in prioritizing highest needs kids (I work in Medicaid and see those kids every day) but there are also a whole lot more kids who are beginning to struggle academically and from mental health concerns.

I have kids in a JKLM school and we probably have 15% of kids who who make the first cut for being high needs. Then you have 20% of kids who are podded up in spectacular fashion and academically and socially aren't missing a beat during this pandemic (in fact they are thriving). I have friends like this--families
have kids in groups of 6 with tutors who are actual teachers. They are THRIVING.

But between the two you have about 70% of kids who are struggling in one way or another. I have one of these. She is doing ok but her grades are slipping, she's becoming morose and she's lonely and bored and just sad. Not every day but when you look at the composite person vs. who she was last spring there's a striking change.
Kids just aren't meant to be solo creatures.
She would benefit enormously from a hybrid model. You are slowing hurting a TON of kids like this. [/quote

My kids are in this 70% too. Not highest needs but not in a pod. Just lonely and scraping by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

Nobody is blaming things on special needs kids. I know it is politically incorrect to say that anything less than everything should go to the neediest group, but allocating public resources is a compromise for everyone.

I mainly blame DC for making DCPS one of the top social services providers. Those social services should absolutely be provided, but the chief provider should be organizations whose chief mission is social service, not the organization tasked with providing education to (all!) 40,000 public school kids. How to make allocation decisions would be more straightforward and more effective is the problems and the solution providers were more clearly aligned.

well, you’re wrong. the model of schools providing wrap-around services is well established here. and we’re talking about the core function of educating kids right now anyway - the whole “schools should not provide social services” is a canard on many levels.

Schools should be part of the need-identification and the delivery, but the core function should be coordinated and managed by others.

When the school system dismisses its responsibility to provide education (as in 35 elementary students in a distance learning class) to focus predominantly on wrap-around services, then the whole thing is out if whack and the government managers are failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so the whole agreement just signed will amount to nothing more than these few high needs kids back? What about schools where most kids are high needs?

In those schools, the highest of the high needs would be prioritized. Or do you think teachers from Janney should be taken to staff Title 1 schools? I’m guessing not. On a school-by-school basis, it looks like DCPS wants to prioritize the highest needs kids. And I fully expect the selfish parents of DCUM land to flip out over that.

Prioritizing the highest needs is one thing; deciding that the system only needs to educate a fraction of its students is another. People *should* flip out over that.

no sympathy. if the union and their parent cronies had not tanked the earlier plan (including the original hybrid idea) we would be much closer to getting all kids back into the classroom.

Nope. We wouldn’t be closer. Insisting that some kids get 4 or 5 days means there is no capacity for many other kids to get back at all.

That was a big flaw in the last plan and, from what people are saying here, in DCPS’s approach now.

Why do at-risk kids have to have 4 or 5 days rather than 2 or 3? Wouldn’t 2 or 3 be a big improvement?! I get the at-risk needs are severe, but there are other serious needs that need addressing to.

Well at this point it is all rumors. But what’s absolutely clear is that the hysterical and selfish reaction of the WTU and parent supporters set us back by months. But I’m sure you’ll blame everything on special needs kids - nothing we haven’t heard before!

You can believe its smoke and mirrors and rumors all you want. It’s true. And you can blame the union all you want. Dcps f’ed this up from the get go. I have kid with special needs, I get it. But let’s not act like DCPS has ever really cared about kids with ieps....they haven’t.

I have actually gotten much better services from DCPS central than our IB. Early stages eval, private daycare IEP, and then a really strong IEP to transition to IB K. Our IB IEP teams routinely deny eligibility for kids who need it, in contrast. So at this point I’m going to go with DCPS.

You are one of the very few people to actually like early stages. Anyway, once you are past 8 years old (developmental delay) and have to actually find a category for a child to qualify under, yes, you do find kids ineligible.

But whatever, you can talk about how great central office is and how crappy your school is. Maybe you should ask central office to actually implement the iep they wrote. Bet you won’t be as impressed.