What are your school’s term 3 plans??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

total nonsequitur. schools aren’t even educating kids now, let alone providing any additional services.

[Anonymous]

I have 1 neurotypical child and two with special needs. There is no comparison of their situation. We are not in a pod so all are lacking the socialization and academic support of a pod. But for my kids with IEPs it is academic crisis. My neurotypical child is behind where they would be academically if we were in person learning but they will eventually catch up. I am kept awake at night knowing my other two may never catch up. I want all kids back in school, but also get why DCPS would want the neediest to be in person 4 days a week. And I will personally be grateful if it happens, even though I will feel bad for my neurotypical child. But my other kids’ situation is that desperate and I know we’re not alone.

[Anonymous]

Also, PP, you say “the model of schools providing wrap-around services is well established here.”

Can you point to evidence showing that this “well-established” model is succeeding on either the education or the social services front?!

The results look pretty dismal to me, which seems like a good sign that DC should fix the model, asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 1 neurotypical child and two with special needs. There is no comparison of their situation. We are not in a pod so all are lacking the socialization and academic support of a pod. But for my kids with IEPs it is academic crisis. My neurotypical child is behind where they would be academically if we were in person learning but they will eventually catch up. I am kept awake at night knowing my other two may never catch up. I want all kids back in school, but also get why DCPS would want the neediest to be in person 4 days a week. And I will personally be grateful if it happens, even though I will feel bad for my neurotypical child. But my other kids’ situation is that desperate and I know we’re not alone.

That’s great for your NT kids, but the experience of many NT kids is worse than that. The at-risk definition doesn’t capture all the serious needs, particularly when the context has been changed dramatically for almost a year now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP, you say “the model of schools providing wrap-around services is well established here.”

Can you point to evidence showing that this “well-established” model is succeeding on either the education or the social services front?!

The results look pretty dismal to me, which seems like a good sign that DC should fix the model, asap.

are you really using covid to argue that kids should get fewer services at school? what a terrible person you are.

https://bainumfdn.org/what-we-do/wrap-around-support/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 1 neurotypical child and two with special needs. There is no comparison of their situation. We are not in a pod so all are lacking the socialization and academic support of a pod. But for my kids with IEPs it is academic crisis. My neurotypical child is behind where they would be academically if we were in person learning but they will eventually catch up. I am kept awake at night knowing my other two may never catch up. I want all kids back in school, but also get why DCPS would want the neediest to be in person 4 days a week. And I will personally be grateful if it happens, even though I will feel bad for my neurotypical child. But my other kids’ situation is that desperate and I know we’re not alone.

That’s great for your NT kids, but the experience of many NT kids is worse than that. The at-risk definition doesn’t capture all the serious needs, particularly when the context has been changed dramatically for almost a year now.

you’re just going to need to take a seat. you should have spoken up more strongly and supportively of returning to school in November. now you will reap what you and WTU have sown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, PP, you say “the model of schools providing wrap-around services is well established here.”

Can you point to evidence showing that this “well-established” model is succeeding on either the education or the social services front?!

The results look pretty dismal to me, which seems like a good sign that DC should fix the model, asap.

are you really using covid to argue that kids should get fewer services at school? what a terrible person you are.

https://bainumfdn.org/what-we-do/wrap-around-support/

I don’t argue that kids should get fewer services — they should probably get more! I do argue that the provision of those services should be led by a different organization than DCPS. DCPS already has a job that it’s failing at.

[Anonymous]

Hearst is going to open several more Cares classrooms for the 3rd Quarter. One per grade I believe. I should be excited, but given the rise of Covid in the District right now it concerns me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst is going to open several more Cares classrooms for the 3rd Quarter. One per grade I believe. I should be excited, but given the rise of Covid in the District right now it concerns me.

https://twitter.com/betsyjwolf/status/1340379831180144640?s=21

This should make you feel lots better. Just think of how many classrooms that will be come Feb 1.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/betsyjwolf/status/1340387903332036608?s=21

She updated it with new info.

[Anonymous]

L-T's CARES room is also closed because of an asymptomatic positive case caught on a random test.

[Anonymous]

I mean if we are seeing 16% positivity rate in JUST these handful of CARES classrooms what will it look like with double triple, etc the students....


And non CARES will have more interaction, these kids are just sitting looking at a computer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean if we are seeing 16% positivity rate in JUST these handful of CARES classrooms what will it look like with double triple, etc the students....


And non CARES will have more interaction, these kids are just sitting looking at a computer...

It’s not a “16% positivity rate.” It’s about a 1.3% positivity rate, with no indication of school-based spread.

So 85% of classes stay in-person while others go remote temporarily.

So?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean if we are seeing 16% positivity rate in JUST these handful of CARES classrooms what will it look like with double triple, etc the students....


And non CARES will have more interaction, these kids are just sitting looking at a computer...

It’s not a “16% positivity rate.” It’s about a 1.3% positivity rate, with no indication of school-based spread.

So 85% of classes stay in-person while others go remote temporarily.

So?

I wish we could pin this tweet. So when people get on here just absolutely apoplectic that their child’s class is sent home we can post it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean if we are seeing 16% positivity rate in JUST these handful of CARES classrooms what will it look like with double triple, etc the students....


And non CARES will have more interaction, these kids are just sitting looking at a computer...

It’s not a “16% positivity rate.” It’s about a 1.3% positivity rate, with no indication of school-based spread.

So 85% of classes stay in-person while others go remote temporarily.

So?

I wish we could pin this tweet. So when people get on here just absolutely apoplectic that their child’s class is sent home we can post it.

It’s better to go and get sent home than never go at all.