PETITION: MCPS Board of Eduction - Keep Schools Open for In-Person Learning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a secure poll was directly sent by mcps (NOT the pta) to (and only to) all parents/guardians, then the result would be more believable.

These random petitions are not representative of what mcps parents/guardians want.

True, but even when they did that last spring, and 50% of the respondents said they wanted to return to school, the 'virtual only' crowd had a ton of excuses about why that poll wasn't really accurate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

If you are citing these realities are reasons to keep school virtual, you should also recognize that factors you mention that make virtual school more workable, also put these same families at greater risk of poor outcomes. There is more mixing of households for indoor unmasked interactions, especially those that involved older adults and those with high risk conditions, making virtual school less safe for the families that are most at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of issues with this CHOP paper:

- 2.) emphasizes staying home with respiratory illness, which not all families will do
- 6.) encourages boosters and vaccinations, which is great, but not all kids are currently protected by these, either because they are late/didn't get them or are 12-15 and got them early; this warrants flexibility while they get things in order
- many of the recommendations are sensible but not being followed by school systems (though most are in DC) - masks being required, for example

Is this the only guidance like this? Are others joining CHOP?

Also, remember, this is population guidance, and for that it is sound. Individuals do have different needs and may need or want to make different choices.

This essay from a Harvard professor of medicine and epidemiology really captures a lot of my feelings on this issue. I echo her sentiment that voices of color are not represented as they should be in this discussion.

https://prospect.org/education/folly-of-school-openings-as-zero-sum-game-coronavirus/

It is an interesting essay, but it is unfortunate how she criticizes “either/or” thinking by people she disagrees with, but then wholeheartedly engages in that thinking herself. It really deflated the impact of the essay for me. Definitely a “do as I say, not as I do” take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple of issues with this CHOP paper:

- 2.) emphasizes staying home with respiratory illness, which not all families will do
- 6.) encourages boosters and vaccinations, which is great, but not all kids are currently protected by these, either because they are late/didn't get them or are 12-15 and got them early; this warrants flexibility while they get things in order
- many of the recommendations are sensible but not being followed by school systems (though most are in DC) - masks being required, for example

Is this the only guidance like this? Are others joining CHOP?

Also, remember, this is population guidance, and for that it is sound. Individuals do have different needs and may need or want to make different choices.

This essay from a Harvard professor of medicine and epidemiology really captures a lot of my feelings on this issue. I echo her sentiment that voices of color are not represented as they should be in this discussion.

https://prospect.org/education/folly-of-school-openings-as-zero-sum-game-coronavirus/

I don't disagree with what she says. Unfortunately, it seems to follow the same either/or structure she decries: White vs. minority families. Minority families are not a monolith, but that essay implies that they are. I know plenty of "white influencers" who demand virtual education in the name of minority children. That's not okay, either.

What's missing all around is a discussion of ALL the issues and trade-offs. Are there potential benefits to virtual instruction? Absolutely! But those benefits come with drawbacks, and frankly, too many proponents of virtual instruction seem unwilling to consider those. And at this point, we're so far gone into stress and chaos that it's hard to maintain an open mind. It's hard for me to listen honestly to people who yelled things like "school isn't childcare!" and "you just want teachers to die!"

I get that we still need to consider adults in this equation. Frankly, though, they've had their needs tended to far more than children have thus far in the pandemic and knowing as much as we do, scientifically, about the impact of chronic stress on kids, it's unconscionable to keep moving forward as we have been in the past.

+1

It is strange how un-self-aware the author comes across as.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

Agree with what you wrote, but it is important to note that the free childcare is often the teen/tween older siblings who lose their own education to monitor younger siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Please sign this petition to keep doing what we are doing! I am an upper middle class Bethesda mom! Do the thing I say that you are already doing NOW!"

Do you think the working middle class parents outside of Bethesda have the means to supervise their kids during virtual learning?

That's not and shouldn't be the measure of education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

What is the source of your “data”, PP? It seems speculative and doesn’t reflect my experience at all. At our school, a title 1 school, POC and working class families mine (because yes, I think this is more about commonalities of SES not race on this particular front) are NOT well positioned in terms of childcare. We may have informal childcare but this often includes our high school or middle school children minding younger siblings. It’s hardly the kind of supervision that optimizes virtual learning, especially younger kids. Like other families, I sent my young kids to live with family elsewhere when virtual was in full flight, but we can’t do that again - it was traumatizing for my kids and my relatives have since returned to work. Additionally, my kids are having a tough time catching up. My younger children are struggling with some of the content covered this year and I’m convinced it’s because it’s hard for young kids to absorb information by virtual format. So again, if you want to do virtual for your school or your kids, go for it. But you don’t speak for all families.

[Anonymous]

At this point, it would be good to have a national, public, synchronous virtual option built, accredited, staffed by good teachers, that schools nationally could tap into as needed. It seems like people's needs are so diverse, that for many, virtual may be necessary for the several next few years. I have no idea if such an infrastructure could be built in our decentralized federal system, but it would take pressure off all these local school systems as well. They all seem overwhelmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to bring this back up, but I am still very confused about how the fact I want my child to be in person at our public school is born from some sort of privilege? I am not trying to be snarky, I just truly do not understand it. So many people throwing out angry stereotypes here. Agreed there are people of all stripes on both sides of this. Personally, in person school is just crucial for my kids mental health (they were so miserable during virtual) and I don't think there is yet enough evidence of community spread. The teacher shortages, I understand.

Aside from trolls who say parents who want in person school just want babysitting, I don't understand the class arguments at all.

Working class POC in Montgomery County are more likely (emphasis so no one pops up with their opposing anecdote, if that's all they have) than wealthier white families to:

-Suffer poorer outcomes from COVID
-Have already lost loved ones to COVID
-Live with older, more vulnerable relatives
-Have at least a few close community members they can rely on to swap virtual supervision duties with
-Per above, have jobs where they can actually be completely off of work at least 1-2 days (during daytime) during the week
-Have those same hourly/shift jobs that don't allow them to take any or many sick days-- which means both a greater likelihood of sending kids in sick or exposed (if in person) and a stronger preference that the kids not get sick in the first place
-Even if they don't want to send their kids in-person, be unable to keep kids home truant d/t less supervision (without virtual-- but with virtual, they would be more able to swap childcare)
-Be harassed if they keep their kids home truant (without virtual)
-Etc.

There are several reasons that WC POC were far more likely to keep their kids in virtual last spring than UMC white families, including language barriers I won't discount, but the above accounted for a lot of them.

It's also the case that though they are underserved by virtual, many have reported facing less racism/classism in discipline with virtual than in-person.

It's definitely true that WC POC are more likely than the opposite to have their kids not sign in for virtual or be really unsupported if they are struggling, d/t lack of resources, having only an older sibling to supervise, etc. However, those cases are in the minority.

People are inferring-- and there is some truth to it-- that working class families need the "free childcare" more than wealthier families. But they're making a few errors. Among them is the assumption that the only way for kids to do passably in virtual is for each child's parent to be at home and providing heavy supervision and assistance (on average). Clearly parents are less able (again, on average) to provide this if they WOH than WFH. But there's no proof that it makes such an incredible difference for the average kid that it's strictly necessary.

Another error, of course, is assuming that if schools are not in session, WC POC have no options for childcare other than paid childcare, which they have less money for. In fact, they're more likely to have trusted, unpaid, flexible childcare than UMC white parents.

And of course, risk assessment is different when you're at higher risk of devastation from COVID.

So... I hope that helps. That's not even comprehensive, on any side, and I don't claim it is. It's just off the top of my head because I have a work break.

I think statements about privilege are (or should be) more about not considering other people in different, more challenging circumstances. It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of. People who are less privileged, on average, actually must have some understanding of the perspectives and circumstances of the more-privileged in order to survive. It's related to what WEB DuBois calls Double Consciousness, but anyhow. What I'm talking about is the idea that if you're the ant, you have to know where the boot is going to step, but if you're the boot, the comings and goings of the ant aren't all that salient to you.

What is the source of your “data”, PP? It seems speculative and doesn’t reflect my experience at all. At our school, a title 1 school, POC and working class families mine (because yes, I think this is more about commonalities of SES not race on this particular front) are NOT well positioned in terms of childcare. We may have informal childcare but this often includes our high school or middle school children minding younger siblings. It’s hardly the kind of supervision that optimizes virtual learning, especially younger kids. Like other families, I sent my young kids to live with family elsewhere when virtual was in full flight, but we can’t do that again - it was traumatizing for my kids and my relatives have since returned to work. Additionally, my kids are having a tough time catching up. My younger children are struggling with some of the content covered this year and I’m convinced it’s because it’s hard for young kids to absorb information by virtual format. So again, if you want to do virtual for your school or your kids, go for it. But you don’t speak for all families.

+1 I stated that already upthread, having grown up lower income, that typically, parents rely on the older siblings for childcare, and during VL last year, that a lot of the older kids missed instruction because they had to help the younger kids. The ^^PP who wrote that long dissertation lives in a bubble and only goes by what she reads in studies, but probably has never lived being low income in real life and what it's really like in these homes.

It's ironic how the ^PP wrote: "It is a privilege to be ignorant of... well, all the things you are apparently ignorant of.", when clearly, that ^PP is also ignorant of what they write about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, it would be good to have a national, public, synchronous virtual option built, accredited, staffed by good teachers, that schools nationally could tap into as needed. It seems like people's needs are so diverse, that for many, virtual may be necessary for the several next few years. I have no idea if such an infrastructure could be built in our decentralized federal system, but it would take pressure off all these local school systems as well. They all seem overwhelmed.

for the same reason why we don't have the same driving laws - each state gets to dictate their own education standards. So yea, it's not really possible.

You could call it "Homeschooling", but then again, each state has their own homeschooling laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a secure poll was directly sent by mcps (NOT the pta) to (and only to) all parents/guardians, then the result would be more believable.

These random petitions are not representative of what mcps parents/guardians want.

True, but even when they did that last spring, and 50% of the respondents said they wanted to return to school, the 'virtual only' crowd had a ton of excuses about why that poll wasn't really accurate

It was asking what people wanted for their own kids, not what the system should do as a whole. And yeah, it was a terribly-written form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, it would be good to have a national, public, synchronous virtual option built, accredited, staffed by good teachers, that schools nationally could tap into as needed. It seems like people's needs are so diverse, that for many, virtual may be necessary for the several next few years. I have no idea if such an infrastructure could be built in our decentralized federal system, but it would take pressure off all these local school systems as well. They all seem overwhelmed.

for the same reason why we don't have the same driving laws - each state gets to dictate their own education standards. So yea, it's not really possible.

You could call it "Homeschooling", but then again, each state has their own homeschooling laws.

Couldn't we just outsource the whole thing to Sal Khan to build and staff up? I mean we are all using khanacademy anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a secure poll was directly sent by mcps (NOT the pta) to (and only to) all parents/guardians, then the result would be more believable.

These random petitions are not representative of what mcps parents/guardians want.

True, but even when they did that last spring, and 50% of the respondents said they wanted to return to school, the 'virtual only' crowd had a ton of excuses about why that poll wasn't really accurate

Huh? What survey???

Unless a survey goes through the PTA, I'm not sure how anyone would know about it? How was it distributed? Do you have the link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://chng.it/vqFGRX8zvX

Liar. This is the real link:

https://www.change.org/p/in-person-learning-is-the-only-solution-keep-mcps-schools-open-for-in-person-learning

Why on earth are you still arguing about "real" links for a petition that has no bearing at all on anything? It makes people feel like they've done something to sign it, but that's about it.

Why on earth would anyone post a fake link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a secure poll was directly sent by mcps (NOT the pta) to (and only to) all parents/guardians, then the result would be more believable.

These random petitions are not representative of what mcps parents/guardians want.

True, but even when they did that last spring, and 50% of the respondents said they wanted to return to school, the 'virtual only' crowd had a ton of excuses about why that poll wasn't really accurate

Huh? What survey???

Unless a survey goes through the PTA, I'm not sure how anyone would know about it? How was it distributed? Do you have the link?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/reopening/parent-survey.aspx

42% return to school, 22% virtual, 35% undecided. I know this isn't as awesome or authoritative as the 14K vs. 2K change.org drivel floating around.