FCPS Early Release Mondays

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just think this whole thing is ironic. FCPS had a big push this year to address chronic absenteeism because being in school was sooooo important.

We heard about the importance of being in school all year long, signs, flyers, emails, awards!

And then bam - 1/2 day Mondays. It seems super hypocritical. Pay the teachers to get the training outside of instructional hours. If it is so important to do this training do it over the summer (1 and 1/2 times pay) so it can be implemented next year. Come on! Guess kids next year don’t need this.

I'll take "Out of Touch with Reality" for 1000, Alex!

Let's unpack all the issues with your post:

1. Teachers do not need to work outside instructional hours, even if parents think they should.

2. For most teachers, summers are already planned out. Some teachers travel, some spend time with family, some work a summer job, and others have curriculum development commitments.

3. You think FCPS is going to pay teachers 1.5 times their hourly rate? That's hilarious. Most teachers get paid $20-$25/hour for trainings outside contract hours, so after taxes, some make less than $15/hour.

4. The VDOE modules aren't even available yet, so how do you expect teachers to complete them all over the summer? Should they manifest them from positive thinking and wishes to appease you?

5. It isn't as though every Monday is an early release (not a half-day, but an early release). It's seven Mondays for the entire year. Seven. While those seven are in addition to a few Monday holidays FCPS observes, it's still only seven early release days.

You’re not really addressing the PPs point. Is it important to be in school or not? If 21 hours was wholly irrelevant to instruction why shouldn’t parents pull their kids on the three days that makes sense for them?

Obviously it’s important but every single school district has had to exchange some instructional time to manage this STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENT. Every district. For LCPS it’s just 4 entire days. For FCPS it’s 7 half days. However you cut it, the state instituted a requirement that necessitates cutting instructional time to make it happen. It’s an issue with the state you have, not your individual district. It’s 32 hours of mandatory training that had to come from somewhere.

Exactly. Please stop bashing FCPS for completing MANDATORY STATE training. They can never win.

FCPS could remove the non mandatory training that fills up the existing teacher workdays.

What training would that be? I really can’t think of any. I may not like all the training offerings, but many are also state required.

They aren’t trainings, but I’d be willing to do away with staff morning meetings at the start of every SD day. That would save a half hour or so each time. We don’t need to be split into groups to stand in a circle of 20 people or so and share why we are thankful for at least one other person. That’s probably another 20 minutes. I’m sure I could think of more time saving examples.

I’m happy to drop those as well - but not the free food. If they can say what they want while I eat, I’m ok with that. 😊

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of doing this Monday garbage, why not just move through start of school later? No on wants to start school on Aug 19 anyway. Leave it to FCPS to ruin a good thing (more planning for teachers) by picking the most inconvenient and painful implementation.

Pushing back the start date of school by a week or several days would violate IEPs. The iEPS are all written with services beginning on the first day of school per the calendar that sped teacher had. FCPS cannot do this. I wish they could! But they can't, because of special education services.

They did it the second year of COVID, when the start of school was pushed back 2 weeks until after Labor Day. Maybe there was some sort of waiver, no idea. Just saying it's been done before.

And then the litigious sped parents sued FCPS and demanded compensatory education and compensatory money! They are still battling FCPS about this.
There are a group of sped parents who hate FCPS/staff and want FCPS torched. You are very out of touch. FCPS cannot push back the start of school. Again, I wish they could....but they cannot.

Of course they can!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just think this whole thing is ironic. FCPS had a big push this year to address chronic absenteeism because being in school was sooooo important.

We heard about the importance of being in school all year long, signs, flyers, emails, awards!

And then bam - 1/2 day Mondays. It seems super hypocritical. Pay the teachers to get the training outside of instructional hours. If it is so important to do this training do it over the summer (1 and 1/2 times pay) so it can be implemented next year. Come on! Guess kids next year don’t need this.

I'll take "Out of Touch with Reality" for 1000, Alex!

Let's unpack all the issues with your post:

1. Teachers do not need to work outside instructional hours, even if parents think they should.

2. For most teachers, summers are already planned out. Some teachers travel, some spend time with family, some work a summer job, and others have curriculum development commitments.

3. You think FCPS is going to pay teachers 1.5 times their hourly rate? That's hilarious. Most teachers get paid $20-$25/hour for trainings outside contract hours, so after taxes, some make less than $15/hour.

4. The VDOE modules aren't even available yet, so how do you expect teachers to complete them all over the summer? Should they manifest them from positive thinking and wishes to appease you?

5. It isn't as though every Monday is an early release (not a half-day, but an early release). It's seven Mondays for the entire year. Seven. While those seven are in addition to a few Monday holidays FCPS observes, it's still only seven early release days.

You’re not really addressing the PPs point. Is it important to be in school or not? If 21 hours was wholly irrelevant to instruction why shouldn’t parents pull their kids on the three days that makes sense for them?

Yes, thank you that was my point. I was just throwing out an idea that there are other way to accomplish this training (you don’t have to like them) but there are other ways and we brainstorm them. FCPS decided less instruction is the way to go.

We have a horrible calendar. It is inconsistent already and this just adds to it. Consistency is importance for learning. Language, math - you need to practice everyday to get good at these things.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of doing this Monday garbage, why not just move through start of school later? No on wants to start school on Aug 19 anyway. Leave it to FCPS to ruin a good thing (more planning for teachers) by picking the most inconvenient and painful implementation.

Pushing back the start date of school by a week or several days would violate IEPs. The iEPS are all written with services beginning on the first day of school per the calendar that sped teacher had. FCPS cannot do this. I wish they could! But they can't, because of special education services.

They did it the second year of COVID, when the start of school was pushed back 2 weeks until after Labor Day. Maybe there was some sort of waiver, no idea. Just saying it's been done before.

And then the litigious sped parents sued FCPS and demanded compensatory education and compensatory money! They are still battling FCPS about this.
There are a group of sped parents who hate FCPS/staff and want FCPS torched. You are very out of touch. FCPS cannot push back the start of school. Again, I wish they could....but they cannot.

Of course they can!!

But why would they when the training modules are meant to be taken over time, not in a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of doing this Monday garbage, why not just move through start of school later? No on wants to start school on Aug 19 anyway. Leave it to FCPS to ruin a good thing (more planning for teachers) by picking the most inconvenient and painful implementation.

Pushing back the start date of school by a week or several days would violate IEPs. The iEPS are all written with services beginning on the first day of school per the calendar that sped teacher had. FCPS cannot do this. I wish they could! But they can't, because of special education services.

They did it the second year of COVID, when the start of school was pushed back 2 weeks until after Labor Day. Maybe there was some sort of waiver, no idea. Just saying it's been done before.

And then the litigious sped parents sued FCPS and demanded compensatory education and compensatory money! They are still battling FCPS about this.
There are a group of sped parents who hate FCPS/staff and want FCPS torched. You are very out of touch. FCPS cannot push back the start of school. Again, I wish they could....but they cannot.

You sounds old and antiquated. Come on, think outside the box. Of course the start date can be changed. Hours can be accommodated. Be creative. As a special ed parent, I'd MUCH prefer four full days scattered throughout the year than a smattering of random Mondays that are disruptive to the flow and consistency that's best for all kids.

(Acknowledging days at the beginning of the year might not work in this case, given that modules apparently won't be released by fall.)

[Anonymous]

PP - sound, not sounds. This site needs an edit button.

[Anonymous]

Early release days mean zero learning happens that day.

Seven days of instruction lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of doing this Monday garbage, why not just move through start of school later? No on wants to start school on Aug 19 anyway. Leave it to FCPS to ruin a good thing (more planning for teachers) by picking the most inconvenient and painful implementation.

Pushing back the start date of school by a week or several days would violate IEPs. The iEPS are all written with services beginning on the first day of school per the calendar that sped teacher had. FCPS cannot do this. I wish they could! But they can't, because of special education services.

They did it the second year of COVID, when the start of school was pushed back 2 weeks until after Labor Day. Maybe there was some sort of waiver, no idea. Just saying it's been done before.

And then the litigious sped parents sued FCPS and demanded compensatory education and compensatory money! They are still battling FCPS about this.
There are a group of sped parents who hate FCPS/staff and want FCPS torched. You are very out of touch. FCPS cannot push back the start of school. Again, I wish they could....but they cannot.

You sounds old and antiquated. Come on, think outside the box. Of course the start date can be changed. Hours can be accommodated. Be creative. As a special ed parent, I'd MUCH prefer four full days scattered throughout the year than a smattering of random Mondays that are disruptive to the flow and consistency that's best for all kids.

(Acknowledging days at the beginning of the year might not work in this case, given that modules apparently won't be released by fall.)

I hear you. I wish FCPS could do that. I don't think most special needs parents would agree with you. They would say that the IEP is violated, since most hours are written per week with the first day of school clearly on the services page. Changing this would also require official IEP addendums (with or without meetings) for all children with IEPS, which is a ton of time. That is not manageable for the sped teachers. Nor the gen ed teachers/admin to be pulled out of class for the extra meetings. It's just not logistically possible, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did we all learn to read without all this extra training for our teachers?

For one, your teachers taught you phonics and for two, you didn’t have screens rotting your brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Early release days mean zero learning happens that day.

Seven days of instruction lost.

Maybe at your school, that’s not true for all schools/classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of doing this Monday garbage, why not just move through start of school later? No on wants to start school on Aug 19 anyway. Leave it to FCPS to ruin a good thing (more planning for teachers) by picking the most inconvenient and painful implementation.

Pushing back the start date of school by a week or several days would violate IEPs. The iEPS are all written with services beginning on the first day of school per the calendar that sped teacher had. FCPS cannot do this. I wish they could! But they can't, because of special education services.

They did it the second year of COVID, when the start of school was pushed back 2 weeks until after Labor Day. Maybe there was some sort of waiver, no idea. Just saying it's been done before.

And then the litigious sped parents sued FCPS and demanded compensatory education and compensatory money! They are still battling FCPS about this.
There are a group of sped parents who hate FCPS/staff and want FCPS torched. You are very out of touch. FCPS cannot push back the start of school. Again, I wish they could....but they cannot.

You sounds old and antiquated. Come on, think outside the box. Of course the start date can be changed. Hours can be accommodated. Be creative. As a special ed parent, I'd MUCH prefer four full days scattered throughout the year than a smattering of random Mondays that are disruptive to the flow and consistency that's best for all kids.

(Acknowledging days at the beginning of the year might not work in this case, given that modules apparently won't be released by fall.)

But when thinking “outside of the box” for creative solutions creates more than 21 hours of work for teachers, admin, etc. then it’s not worth it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did we all learn to read without all this extra training for our teachers?

For one, your teachers taught you phonics and for two, you didn’t have screens rotting your brain.

Screens are rotting their brains in the classroom! What happened to actual text books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did we all learn to read without all this extra training for our teachers?

For one, your teachers taught you phonics and for two, you didn’t have screens rotting your brain.

Screens are rotting their brains in the classroom! What happened to actual text books?

Gone in the age of technology. You can read about it on one of the many DCUM posts discussing the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much is this training going to cost FCPS? The worst of this is that, 1) the literacy science isn't actually settled 2) this kerfuffle has been created by various for-profit curriculum companies all vying to have different school districts buy their multi-million dollar curriculums and pay for their expensive curriculum training 3) the only people that are going to suffer are the kids that will end up with still less education.

Science of Reading is required by the Virginia Literacy Act - a state law enacted under Youngkin.

This isn’t the curriculum training.

Yeah, it would be sooo much better to skip this training, save the money, and keep those kids in school for 21 hours (out of 1,000 for the year). No need to learn about teaching phonics or fluency. Let’s just keep doing what we’ve been doing for the last 25 years. Because THAT has worked so well. /s

It is Science of Reading training. That's a curriculum pushed by profit seeking companies.

LOL.

Like Lucy Calkins, F&P, balanced literacy and whole language weren’t curriculums pushed by profit-seeking companies.

What a dolt.

[Anonymous]

Science of Reading is required by state law under the Virginia Literacy Act. It was enacted during Youngkin’s administration.