All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

[Anonymous]

Well obviously the first few words of that were mangled. Oops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

Seriously. They are not educators, for sure. They are panicked parents *thinking* they are doing the right thing by taking up the airwaves and political capital with this push.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG isn’t comparable in that they don’t have half of kids attending charters. Logistically a very different story.

That makes things EASIER for DCPS.

No, offering a virtual option at every school means charters as well, and no central option for the entirety of DC.

I also think charters (and the entire lottery system, for that matter) inhibit DCPS's ability to offer strong centralized leadership as PGPS has. There are so many competing interests in DCPS, it's very hard to unite school communities behind any big idea.

I also think the way DC public schooling is structured contributes to a culture of families not really caring about each other on a basic level. You compete in a lottery for spots, even IB spots at the PK level can be competitive. And then you have school themselves competing with one another for resources. It's a system that isolates families within it. And I think that's one reason you see some of the attitudes on display on this thread and in the whole IPL versus virtual debate. There is always a sense that someone is trying to take something away from you, whether it's a slot at a school or resources or access to a program. That may not be the intention of the system, but that's the effect.

So now parents who have the means to keep their kids virtual want to do so. And I get that, honestly. If I had a way of keeping my kid out of school this year I'd be seriously considering it. The problem is that I don't have that option -- for me, it's in person public school or just sheer misery (maybe job loss, maybe a mental breakdown, it's hard to say at this point). And when I see parents agitating for virtual options in a way that feels designed to undermine in person schooling, yeah, I get anxious. Because I need in person school. Like NEED it.

I wish DCPS could figure out a way to do this that gave everyone what the wanted and needed. But I'm afraid they won't (they never do) and I don't want to wind up with the short end of the stick this time. I can't afford it, frankly.

I’m one of the virtual option proponents and I agree with almost everything you say, but would offer that I and many others I know that are pushing for virtual do not want to remove the option for IPL. In fact I don’t even want simulcast or every school to have virtual as that works less well for everyone (my view only). An irony on the other side is that those digging their heels in against virtual for others could hurt their own cause. As many have reflected expanding the virtual academy doesn’t happen easily. If we had been working on a plan B for risk averse parents, or in case things go south as they are for many schools now closing, there wohld has been much less change that the answer would be to simulcast. But I bet that’s what they’ll do. DCPS right now feels painted into a corner. They, backed by parents willing to call pandemic cautious people names “anxious” and “fear mongering” “afraid of their own shadow” were emboldened into tripling down on a poor choice. It does seem to be the Bowser administrations way (and I voted for her and want to support her, but that’s over..).

I do want to say that if there is a shift to virtual, I will push hard as someone who wants virtual for a system that wont add more undue harm to those who want IPL.

I just would so appreciate the same consideration.

No. You don't get the "same consideration" after 1.5 years of closed schools. Now is the time to pour all resources into reopening schools. Parents who are risk averse can ALWAYS homeschool - which does not take much more resources than virtual.

Here here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big charter donors - Walton, Koch, DeVos, the Heritage/FWorks billionaires - absolutely do see charters as a way to divide parents.

Because we were all one, big happy smiling DCPS community before charters came along. Back in the days when everyone equally chose Eastern and Ballou and Wilson and we weren’t divided at all over the choices.

No one is arguing that. But charters helped to exploit those existing divisions, not relieve them. In theory charters in DC gave families at underperforming schools more choices. But since the lottery, and charters, are available to everyone, it actually just became another way for people who aren’t IB for strong schools to “lose”. Yes, sometimes they win by landing a spot at a charter that is a genuine improvement over their IB. But sometimes they don’t, and the existence of charters makes it harder to improve that IB unless you can afford to live in a neighborhood with high property values, where you can build a critical mass of parents with both the time and, importantly, money to get the school better resources.

And sometimes that doesn’t even work. Look at Brookland. The proliferation of charter options, especially the kind that appeal to high-SES families (immersion, Montessori) means that Brookland’s DCPS schools lose a lot of engaged families to charters. There are still good options at the elementary level in Brookland, but the charters are a brain drain on upper grades and MS/HS. You see something similar in Ward 6, though the charter options on the hill are so scarce (it’s almost impossible to get PK spots at SWS or TR these days) that has benefited some of the DCPS schools. But S-H still struggles to retain students snd EH even more, and everyone is frustrated by how hard it is to get neighborhood kids to go to Eastern, it’s well documented.

No one is saying the previous situation was better. But the charter system in DC has created just as many,if not more, haves and have nots. If you aren’t IB for a strong school in DC, it’s still very, very hard to get your kid a good education. Not impossible, but it takes a level of dedication and energy that usually also comes with privilege.

Tired, tired argument. Charters have led to improved educational choices across the board in DC. Just look at improved test scores, enrollments, graduations rates in both sectors since the first charters came on the scene. Also, schools that are not tied to zip codes ( charters ) are really our biggest hope for truly diverse schools. Move on from the anti-charter hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big charter donors - Walton, Koch, DeVos, the Heritage/FWorks billionaires - absolutely do see charters as a way to divide parents.

Because we were all one, big happy smiling DCPS community before charters came along. Back in the days when everyone equally chose Eastern and Ballou and Wilson and we weren’t divided at all over the choices.

No one is arguing that. But charters helped to exploit those existing divisions, not relieve them. In theory charters in DC gave families at underperforming schools more choices. But since the lottery, and charters, are available to everyone, it actually just became another way for people who aren’t IB for strong schools to “lose”. Yes, sometimes they win by landing a spot at a charter that is a genuine improvement over their IB. But sometimes they don’t, and the existence of charters makes it harder to improve that IB unless you can afford to live in a neighborhood with high property values, where you can build a critical mass of parents with both the time and, importantly, money to get the school better resources.

And sometimes that doesn’t even work. Look at Brookland. The proliferation of charter options, especially the kind that appeal to high-SES families (immersion, Montessori) means that Brookland’s DCPS schools lose a lot of engaged families to charters. There are still good options at the elementary level in Brookland, but the charters are a brain drain on upper grades and MS/HS. You see something similar in Ward 6, though the charter options on the hill are so scarce (it’s almost impossible to get PK spots at SWS or TR these days) that has benefited some of the DCPS schools. But S-H still struggles to retain students snd EH even more, and everyone is frustrated by how hard it is to get neighborhood kids to go to Eastern, it’s well documented.

No one is saying the previous situation was better. But the charter system in DC has created just as many,if not more, haves and have nots. If you aren’t IB for a strong school in DC, it’s still very, very hard to get your kid a good education. Not impossible, but it takes a level of dedication and energy that usually also comes with privilege.

Tired, tired argument. Charters have led to improved educational choices across the board in DC. Just look at improved test scores, enrollments, graduations rates in both sectors since the first charters came on the scene. Also, schools that are not tied to zip codes ( charters ) are really our biggest hope for truly diverse schools. Move on from the anti-charter hype.

Also--if you weren't here engaged in the educational scene in DC BEFORE charters. You have NO IDEA how bad it was and how many "have-nots" there were compared to now. There were no golden "good old days"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big charter donors - Walton, Koch, DeVos, the Heritage/FWorks billionaires - absolutely do see charters as a way to divide parents.

Because we were all one, big happy smiling DCPS community before charters came along. Back in the days when everyone equally chose Eastern and Ballou and Wilson and we weren’t divided at all over the choices.

No one is arguing that. But charters helped to exploit those existing divisions, not relieve them. In theory charters in DC gave families at underperforming schools more choices. But since the lottery, and charters, are available to everyone, it actually just became another way for people who aren’t IB for strong schools to “lose”. Yes, sometimes they win by landing a spot at a charter that is a genuine improvement over their IB. But sometimes they don’t, and the existence of charters makes it harder to improve that IB unless you can afford to live in a neighborhood with high property values, where you can build a critical mass of parents with both the time and, importantly, money to get the school better resources.

And sometimes that doesn’t even work. Look at Brookland. The proliferation of charter options, especially the kind that appeal to high-SES families (immersion, Montessori) means that Brookland’s DCPS schools lose a lot of engaged families to charters. There are still good options at the elementary level in Brookland, but the charters are a brain drain on upper grades and MS/HS. You see something similar in Ward 6, though the charter options on the hill are so scarce (it’s almost impossible to get PK spots at SWS or TR these days) that has benefited some of the DCPS schools. But S-H still struggles to retain students snd EH even more, and everyone is frustrated by how hard it is to get neighborhood kids to go to Eastern, it’s well documented.

No one is saying the previous situation was better. But the charter system in DC has created just as many,if not more, haves and have nots. If you aren’t IB for a strong school in DC, it’s still very, very hard to get your kid a good education. Not impossible, but it takes a level of dedication and energy that usually also comes with privilege.

Like it or not, charters led to more improvement of DCPS than happened before there were charters. You can hope that without charters DCPS IB options would improve for all but it's a hope based on no actual evidence and certainly not based on history. I'm grateful to see the improvements that have happened at many DCPS schools but I'm just as grateful that there are charter options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

I'm betting they'd be non-unionized people in other states. That would be the only way to get people quickly. I'd imagine it would have to be a new charter in order to avoid WTU negotiation....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

Seriously. They are not educators, for sure. They are panicked parents *thinking* they are doing the right thing by taking up the airwaves and political capital with this push.

I'm not even an educator. I just put together major projects as part of my job (although I have actually put together a new academic educational program before). I have gone through the process of contracting for commercial space, doing build out, hiring staff, creating an organizational hierarchy, etc. But I didn't even have to deal with sourcing the funds for my budget. If someone gave me this project, I could DO it, but it's gonna take some time. It's completely unfeasible while DCPS is working on other major initiatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

Wait, You think what happened in March 2020 and last school year in terms of "flipping the switch" was a success? Have you spoken to many educators about the toll it has taken on them and the students and their families? Ask an educator what they think about the quality of the education they were able to offer virtually. Ask about the rates of depression in kids and the thousands of students who just never logged on. Ask about the number of Kindergarten/1st graders who have yet to touch a physical reading book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

You have just now argued that they could flip a switch and create/expand a virtual academy at the same time you have indicated a significant barrier to doing so. Thank you for making my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

And what we got was half-assed garbage that nearly everyone involved hated. So yeah, they could maybe slap something together that would -- you have to admit -- be terrible. What do you think the virtual option people would do then? Be content?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

Wait, You think what happened in March 2020 and last school year in terms of "flipping the switch" was a success? Have you spoken to many educators about the toll it has taken on them and the students and their families? Ask an educator what they think about the quality of the education they were able to offer virtually. Ask about the rates of depression in kids and the thousands of students who just never logged on. Ask about the number of Kindergarten/1st graders who have yet to touch a physical reading book.

Upon re reading this, I think PP is actually conflating making all students virtual with having a virtual option. Running a parallel stream at the same time is a logistics challenge. They have very different challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do logistics (in a different field) for logistics, and I am not worried that the virtual option will take resources away from IPL, because it's not happening at this point.

Even if Bowser/Ferebee came out today and said yes to a virtual option, it would take at least a few months to put it together. But first, they would want to have a committee explore the options for expansion of virtual learning to see if it's even feasible.

It ain't getting done this calendar year. And there's even less of a reason to try to institute it for terms 3 & 4.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of jobs the people hold who think we can just flip a switch and turn on virtual.

well ... they actually did just flip a switch in March 2020! I'm against a virtual option, but I have no doubt they could flip a switch and do it. The real sticking point for DCPS is probably hiring teachers for it. Not sure where the "IPL option" folks think the teachers are going to magically come from?

And what we got was half-assed garbage that nearly everyone involved hated. So yeah, they could maybe slap something together that would -- you have to admit -- be terrible. What do you think the virtual option people would do then? Be content?

Yeah, I'm like...do you remember Spring 2020? Mostly schools just stopped educating children.