What are your school’s term 3 plans??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

What a fantasy world you live in.

[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?

+1

And just to clarify, percent is a measure that allows comparison between two groups that are not equal in number. So there’s a good chance that tripling the number of kids will not change the positivity rate. It might triple the number of cases, but the percent will remain the same. Hence why we use rates as a measure instead of raw numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

What a fantasy world you live in.

After reading all these threads?? No way I’m living in a fantasy. You may not be included in the crazy group but there are people on here that will complain and whine and say it isn’t fair. You are delusional if you don’t realize that

[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?

+1

And just to clarify, percent is a measure that allows comparison between two groups that are not equal in number. So there’s a good chance that tripling the number of kids will not change the positivity rate. It might triple the number of cases, but the percent will remain the same. Hence why we use rates as a measure instead of raw numbers.

The way schools work tripling the number of cases will lead to more than triple the number of closures. There will be adults traveling from class to class (sped, ell, specialists, Ot, pt, slp, subs, lunch coverage,admin, etc). If one of them gets covid or is a close contact other rooms are going to have to close. Dcps is not intending on maintaining tight cohorts. Sped is even being told we can pull kids out of different cohorts into our classes for services. This type of stuff is going to shut down more rooms if something happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

And just to clarify, percent is a measure that allows comparison between two groups that are not equal in number. So there’s a good chance that tripling the number of kids will not change the positivity rate. It might triple the number of cases, but the percent will remain the same. Hence why we use rates as a measure instead of raw numbers.

The way schools work tripling the number of cases will lead to more than triple the number of closures. There will be adults traveling from class to class (sped, ell, specialists, Ot, pt, slp, subs, lunch coverage,admin, etc). If one of them gets covid or is a close contact other rooms are going to have to close. Dcps is not intending on maintaining tight cohorts. Sped is even being told we can pull kids out of different cohorts into our classes for services. This type of stuff is going to shut down more rooms if something happens.

^^to clarify. Pulling kids from different cohorts together for services. It can even be across grade levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is an interesting approach. It puts the power in the hands of the schools. At my childrens' es the principal is close to retirement and i think is in a position with DCPS to keep the school as closed as possible. Also we simply do not have many at risk kids as a smaller sample to start reopening with. I assume DCPS will put more pressure on schools with high at risk populations. Perhaps DCPS thinks that pitting school comunities against one another by creating unfairness will build pressure for schools to open. Without being able to bargain with the union it seems this is the best they can up with. The communication around this at the school level is very non-transparent.

This is going to be school specific. We have high parent demand and low at-risk population. Teachers have been told that they will build classroom around teachers that volunteer first and the balance of the classrooms (based on demand) will have a teacher who will be assigned from the lottery. A couple of our grades have more than 60% of families responding that they want in person school starting term 3.

Stay tuned for how the WTU responds this week to the bolded part in my response.

Does what you are saying imply that every child needing an in person spot will be accommodated five days per week? Or is this only for at-risk children? Thanks. You are right the lottery idea is sure to make waves.

No one is going to go five full days. It’s hybrid for sped and ell. Everyone else is dl. Unless you are PreK-2, then you get five 1/2 days. No one is getting 5 days. We are getting rid of the care rooms.

Not true, my school has 3 main ways we are talking about and one is everyday and Wednesday is a half day. (like one of the plans DCPS suggested) It's possible some schools will do 5x a week.

Yes, we are at Brent and the classes that are open are 5 days (Wed is a half day)

[Anonymous]

Since plans keep getting rejected is DCPS offering schools examples of what would be approved? Clearly the schools need more direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since plans keep getting rejected is DCPS offering schools examples of what would be approved? Clearly the schools need more direction.

My school was told look at the November plans released. It was heavily hinted that this should be our plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since plans keep getting rejected is DCPS offering schools examples of what would be approved? Clearly the schools need more direction.

My school was told look at the November plans released. It was heavily hinted that this should be our plan.

Why? That’s what is so maddening. Why are they flogging a plan that was disliked by so many different groups?

Are they just wanting to ‘show’ the principals’ union and the teachers’ union and the city council and the various parent groups?

You’d think they would actually be trying to get kids back to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

What a fantasy world you live in.

After reading all these threads?? No way I’m living in a fantasy. You may not be included in the crazy group but there are people on here that will complain and whine and say it isn’t fair. You are delusional if you don’t realize that

All the parents I know who want to return to school (or already have their kids in school) actually read about and understand the issues surrounding school reopening. We are well aware of quarantine procedures. We know the facts, unlike the people who claime schools need to be shut for 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since plans keep getting rejected is DCPS offering schools examples of what would be approved? Clearly the schools need more direction.

My school was told look at the November plans released. It was heavily hinted that this should be our plan.

Why? That’s what is so maddening. Why are they flogging a plan that was disliked by so many different groups?

Are they just wanting to ‘show’ the principals’ union and the teachers’ union and the city council and the various parent groups?

You’d think they would actually be trying to get kids back to school.

DP. Unless you want a concurrent teaching plan (where a teacher teachers kids simultaneously in the classroom and online) the November plan makes sense. It sounds like a lot of the school plans may have resulted in decreasing instruction time with hybrid, which probably isn’t tenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

What a fantasy world you live in.

After reading all these threads?? No way I’m living in a fantasy. You may not be included in the crazy group but there are people on here that will complain and whine and say it isn’t fair. You are delusional if you don’t realize that

All the parents I know who want to return to school (or already have their kids in school) actually read about and understand the issues surrounding school reopening. We are well aware of quarantine procedures. We know the facts, unlike the people who claime schools need to be shut for 2 years.

Let’s meet back again when the complaints start. I give it until Presidents Day. That’s when people will be on here complaining about how their kids class is shut down and how they can’t get any work done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Save this one too.

I’m sure most people on here aren’t crazy. But you have to admit some people on here will be screaming about how no one should be sent home, etc.

What a fantasy world you live in.

After reading all these threads?? No way I’m living in a fantasy. You may not be included in the crazy group but there are people on here that will complain and whine and say it isn’t fair. You are delusional if you don’t realize that

All the parents I know who want to return to school (or already have their kids in school) actually read about and understand the issues surrounding school reopening. We are well aware of quarantine procedures. We know the facts, unlike the people who claime schools need to be shut for 2 years.

Let’s meet back again when the complaints start. I give it until Presidents Day. That’s when people will be on here complaining about how their kids class is shut down and how they can’t get any work done.

whatever dude. you’re projecting your own ignorance and pettiness on others. meanwhile my sister (who pays $$ for private) had has 2 quarantine perlods ar her school and considers that successful. you’re in your own little WTU bubble where it’s now the default norm to keep kids out of school. Those of us with more perspective know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since plans keep getting rejected is DCPS offering schools examples of what would be approved? Clearly the schools need more direction.

My school was told look at the November plans released. It was heavily hinted that this should be our plan.

Why? That’s what is so maddening. Why are they flogging a plan that was disliked by so many different groups?

Are they just wanting to ‘show’ the principals’ union and the teachers’ union and the city council and the various parent groups?

You’d think they would actually be trying to get kids back to school.

DP. Unless you want a concurrent teaching plan (where a teacher teachers kids simultaneously in the classroom and online) the November plan makes sense. It sounds like a lot of the school plans may have resulted in decreasing instruction time with hybrid, which probably isn’t tenable.

Concurrent is fine; decreased teaching time is fine.

To require otherwise is yo pretend like an hour of DL = an hour in-person. Or that an hour of DL with 20 students = an hour of DL with 35 students.

But those things aren’t true! That is why in-person school is desperately needed.

People pushing this hours of instruction BS really are putting weird metrics over kids’ well-being.