Melanie Meren's FB post about the calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

If it’s not a teacher workday or a school panning day, no they don’t. Planning time is defined as time within a school day. The contract defines it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers behaved very badly during COVID and caused a huge distrust of the profession. Refusing to return was distasteful and don't gaslight us. We remember their refusal to return.

And they were right. Deaths in Virginia peaked in January 2021. There was absolutely no world in which schools should have been open in Fall - Winter 2020/21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

You obviously don’t understand planning time for teachers so just shut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers behaved very badly during COVID and caused a huge distrust of the profession. Refusing to return was distasteful and don't gaslight us. We remember their refusal to return.

And they were right. Deaths in Virginia peaked in January 2021. There was absolutely no world in which schools should have been open in Fall - Winter 2020/21.

My kids were in private school and were thriving. 0 Covid cases reporting in the 2020-2021 school year for them.

[Anonymous]

Covid was 5+ years ago. Why in the world are we arguing about it still???

I will never understand the posters who are absolutely obsessed with harping on how FCPS handled Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covid was 5+ years ago. Why in the world are we arguing about it still???

I will never understand the posters who are absolutely obsessed with harping on how FCPS handled Covid.

Because that's just how bad it was for students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

If it’s not a teacher workday or a school panning day, no they don’t. Planning time is defined as time within a school day. The contract defines it.

Yes, and snow days are within the contract days. They are paid. I’ve changed in the policy to include any weather related closure as telework teacher planning time would create the time that is presently missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covid was 5+ years ago. Why in the world are we arguing about it still???

I will never understand the posters who are absolutely obsessed with harping on how FCPS handled Covid.

Because the 2026 culture derives from decisions made between 2020 and 2022. Covid also significantly eroded trust, which has yet to be rebuilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

You obviously don’t understand planning time for teachers so just shut it.

Are you are a troll pretending to be an entitled teacher to further stoke anger among the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covid was 5+ years ago. Why in the world are we arguing about it still???

I will never understand the posters who are absolutely obsessed with harping on how FCPS handled Covid.

Public education is 13 years long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covid was 5+ years ago. Why in the world are we arguing about it still???

I will never understand the posters who are absolutely obsessed with harping on how FCPS handled Covid.

Because it was so bad. FCPS was absolutely a mess and I still don’t trust them. Teacher are still talking about the impacts to students.

[Anonymous]

Explicitly prioritizing the interests of teachers over the interests of students started during COVID and hasn’t stopped. When it stops we will hear less about COVID

[Anonymous]

Just saw a post that the pre-K classes (both special needs and income based) have to go to school until June 16 because otherwise they won’t meet their hour requirements due to all the cancellations. Usually these classes get out a week or so before K-12. I believe Income based pre-K for 4 year olds is 990 hours, same as K-12, so K-12 must juuuuust be squeaking in a little over 990.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Melanie Meren just posted this on Facebook:

The School Board has heard from many families regarding the lack of full, five-day school weeks this year and the significant burden this places on families who must navigate complex and often costly childcare arrangements. In the 2025-26 school year alone, partial weeks occurred more than half the time, functioning as an informal “childcare tax” that falls hardest on our hourly-wage and most vulnerable households.
To address these challenges, I am collaborating on a new draft policy to be circulated among my School Board colleagues that aims to consolidate overlapping directives into a single, unified framework. A primary goal is to prioritize five-day school weeks as the default standard to restore instructional continuity and provide families with stability they need.
Another goal is to clarify the Superintendent’s responsibilities in developing the student calendar while ensuring the School Board reviews and approves it as part of our annual work cycle.
My goal is to have the calendar beginning in SY 26-27 adjusted to increase the number of five-day school weeks.
I’ll keep the community updated as work proceeds.
Sincerely,
Melanie

So, reach out to your Board and have your opinions heard! Don't wait for some dumb and poorly designed survey to land in your spam folder.

It is clear from Meren’s post that she is concerned about the childcare costs to families. She does not cite academics as one of her concerns.

FCPS staff and leadership are all aware that the content in ES does not require a full five days. Parents should also be aware of this in order to be fully informed during any policy change discussions.

Then— crazy idea here— use the time to teach children more than the bare minimum required.

Or, end elementary school two weeks earlier than middle and high school so the kids can start summer (and summer plans which prioritize kids) sooner.

+1. Why is everyone afraid of their kids learning more than the bare minimum required for a test?

We aren’t. We just don’t need the childcare and can handle the 4 day weeks and random days off here and there. If that helps teachers, I’m all for it.

Teachers signed up for this job. Why do they need to only work 4 days a week? We don't need religious holidays. We don't need weeks off in the winter. We don't need 5 days off for Memorial Day.
Kids shouldn't be getting the bare minimum! You won't convince me otherwise.

And the turnover is higher than it's ever been because many are leaving what they "signed up for." The workload is crushing. If we don't find more time for them to get their work done during their contracted hours, turnover isn't going to get any better. Maybe a rotation of random subs in your child's class will convince you otherwise.

Not in FCPS.

And there’s plenty of time in contracted hours— snow days, federal holidays, etc.

🤣🤣 Tell us you are living in fantasy land without telling us. This is the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen in a while.

I disagree. I think the idea that a professional occupation in 2026 can operate without remote work in bad weather is what is out of touch— especially a profession which insisted for three years that they could deliver results online.

The way the labor market is right now does not favor entitlement from teachers and other stakeholders have had about enough.

No teacher insisted anything of the sort.

Neither did "a profession."

And anyway, how did you like that? You simultaneously imply that Covid instruction didn't deliver results and that online instruction on snow days will.

Well, I'm glad we can finally all agree that the education profession wasn't behind virtual schooling and that it was all the politicians.

m

Well no. Teachers did not want to come back in person after being some of the first to be vaccinated (they got to cut the line). The teacher’s organizations, one being FEA, argued this point.

+1 and I did not hear teachers in Fairfax, refuting their collective bargaining group. So I’m afraid yes, it was “the profession.”

I remember when one of those group’s positions was no in person school until zero Covid cases. Can you imagine? The kids would still be at home now!

And yet five years later the people who insisted they can work from home…can’t work from home even on administrative tasks? Make it make sense.

If schools are officially closed they don’t have to. They may have children at home to care for.

Perhaps they do, but then they can’t complain about insufficient contract hours for planning— they will just need to find childcare.

If it’s not a teacher workday or a school panning day, no they don’t. Planning time is defined as time within a school day. The contract defines it.

Yes, and snow days are within the contract days. They are paid. I’ve changed in the policy to include any weather related closure as telework teacher planning time would create the time that is presently missing.

Snow days may not count towards planning time since they are not reliable and we may or may not have them every year.