I don’t like the new concurrent plan (FCPS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

Great, maybe the three of you should run the CDC 😑

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

NP: This is not something you can "agree" with as FCPS does not have the physical space to have students come 5 days a week and maintain the required socially distanced standard. That's like saying we all "agree" that the pandemic should be over--who doesn't, but it's not an option. If FCPS were an underenrolled school system like some rural areas or dying cities this might work, but it's not the case here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

NP: This is not something you can "agree" with as FCPS does not have the physical space to have students come 5 days a week and maintain the required socially distanced standard. That's like saying we all "agree" that the pandemic should be over--who doesn't, but it's not an option. If FCPS were an underenrolled school system like some rural areas or dying cities this might work, but it's not the case here.

With 3' of distance, they could.

If we actually valued our children, we would find ways to make it happen. Our values are clear to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

NP: This is not something you can "agree" with as FCPS does not have the physical space to have students come 5 days a week and maintain the required socially distanced standard. That's like saying we all "agree" that the pandemic should be over--who doesn't, but it's not an option. If FCPS were an underenrolled school system like some rural areas or dying cities this might work, but it's not the case here.

With 3' of distance, they could.

If we actually valued our children, we would find ways to make it happen. Our values are clear to see.

Really, have you actually seen the class blueprints? Because it wouldn’t work at our school. The kids have way less than that amount of space. Guess your school has small classes. Ours doesn’t. Maybe people actually looked at this and realized: (1) the CDC guidance is 6 feet, and (2) there’s not enough space even if you tried for 3 feet? But go ahead and question everyone’s values. Safety clearly isn’t one of yours.

[Anonymous]

It’s really tiresome to have the same “open all the schools all they way today” person troll every thread that has parents agreeing with each other on an actual plan into irrelevance. Maybe a school board member? Lol.

Concurrent is a good option! Let’s just get it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

NP: This is not something you can "agree" with as FCPS does not have the physical space to have students come 5 days a week and maintain the required socially distanced standard. That's like saying we all "agree" that the pandemic should be over--who doesn't, but it's not an option. If FCPS were an underenrolled school system like some rural areas or dying cities this might work, but it's not the case here.

With 3' of distance, they could.

If we actually valued our children, we would find ways to make it happen. Our values are clear to see.

Really, have you actually seen the class blueprints? Because it wouldn’t work at our school. The kids have way less than that amount of space. Guess your school has small classes. Ours doesn’t. Maybe people actually looked at this and realized: (1) the CDC guidance is 6 feet, and (2) there’s not enough space even if you tried for 3 feet? But go ahead and question everyone’s values. Safety clearly isn’t one of yours.

Safety is a priority for us. This includes valuing our physical health and our mental health, especially that of our children, all of our children. We even value education, which, despite efforts by teachers, isn't happening now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Videos are not happening. Not ever. It's not. So, as the other PP said, you need to get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

Another DP and I also agree.

Great, maybe the three of you should run the CDC 😑

Exactly. And I could give exactly zero shits about what those three agree on. Videos aren't happening. Concurrent may or may not, although DL in the current form is working just fine for us.

I will raise holy hell with any attempt at videos only or with my kid losing her teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I think of a teacher can handle 20-30 kids online she can definitely handle having a third of them with her in class at the same time. Smaller online cohort is easier, and she will have eyes on everyone else. Many other benefits. This is being done at other schools successfully, don’t believe the excuses.

This.

I have one i was able to get in private school (my 4th grader) and my 5th grader doing FCPS DL. My 4th graders class sizes are nearly as large as public school. Hebis having such a vetter experience ans quite frankly is working on MORE rigorous work than his older brother.

Even with the same class sizes the public school is more chaotic than private, it's insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Schools should be in person 5 days a week, if you want virtual you can watch a video of the class. end of thread .

No one agrees with you. We can’t have 5 days of school safely given the class sizes in FCPS. Get. Over. It.

DP. I agree with her.

I agree as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it a lot. I hope they get it off the ground.

+1

I emailed my school board members and the at large members and told them this. I'll email again this week and repeat that the concurrent plan sounds good and say how poorly my kid is doing right now, academically and emotionally, with DL.

Cool. I just did the opposite. Not so much as "oppose" concurrent but urged a slow approach that doesn't punish DL kids by taking away their teachers (and some other concerns), as some on here seem to be suggesting. Looks like I'll be doing that on the regular until a decision is make.
Thanks for the reminder.

[Anonymous]

Can the three stooges et out of here please? We can’t even get our kids in twice a week, much less five. I mean, what are you drinking?

The choice is DL or concurrent. There is no other realistic option on the table. 2 day hybrid with 3 day asynch didn’t even work, or else we would have done it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I think of a teacher can handle 20-30 kids online she can definitely handle having a third of them with her in class at the same time. Smaller online cohort is easier, and she will have eyes on everyone else. Many other benefits. This is being done at other schools successfully, don’t believe the excuses.

This.

I have one i was able to get in private school (my 4th grader) and my 5th grader doing FCPS DL. My 4th graders class sizes are nearly as large as public school. Hebis having such a vetter experience ans quite frankly is working on MORE rigorous work than his older brother.

Even with the same class sizes the public school is more chaotic than private, it's insane.

That's bc public schools have to deal with all types of students and family situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it a lot. I hope they get it off the ground.

+1

I emailed my school board members and the at large members and told them this. I'll email again this week and repeat that the concurrent plan sounds good and say how poorly my kid is doing right now, academically and emotionally, with DL.

Cool. I just did the opposite. Not so much as "oppose" concurrent but urged a slow approach that doesn't punish DL kids by taking away their teachers (and some other concerns), as some on here seem to be suggesting. Looks like I'll be doing that on the regular until a decision is make.
Thanks for the reminder.

Concurrent keeps your kid with his teacher.

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DL is going well for us. We were on board with the initial hybrid plan that included 3 asynchronous days. At least that would be a break from virtual slides and presentations by the teachers. Kids would actually have time to complete work. I don’t like this new concurrent plan because it short changes both groups. I don’t think it’s worth the risk to send my kid in for 2 days, only to have the teacher trying to deal with both the virtual and in class kids simultaneously. This is totally ridiculous and will be a disaster. The only reason they have moving to this new plan is because SOLs aren’t waived. They need 4 days of instruction to even attempt the SOLs. Anyone agree?

Nearly every school already open, private and public, is doing this and it works well. Your criticism is offbase.