All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

No. You’re seeing what you want to see, but that’s not the case. The title of this thread is that all schools should offer a virtual option. And many of us strongly disagree. But if DCPS had a central virtual option for anyone who wanted it, which they should have done from the start, many of us would applaud it. Don’t get it twisted, and on every side of this issue, don’t let a very vocal minority drown out the voices of reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

you lost me at “IPL set.” In-person school is not some kind of trend or extra people are trying to get. It is *school.* A basic and fundamental need for all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe if you hadn’t been crying wolf for the past year and a half, you’d have some ground to be commenting. but the fact is the “it’s not safe!!” crowd dug us into a deep, deep hole by keeping schools closed when it was completely uneccesary. And now here we are with kids who have to go back to school to avoid social, emotional, and educational harms. You don’t just disrupt THREE YEARS of schooling. You don’t.

+100

If my kid had gotten even a small amount of in person school in the last 18 months, I might be among the people raising alarms about Delta. I agree it’s a serious issue and it’s making sending my kid back to school very, very difficult for me. There are absolutely days where I just want to homeschool. Ask my husband: we’ve been 9 rounds on this and I am not taking Delta lightly.

The problem is that before Delta even emerged, we had alarm bells ringing all over our life, saying “This kid needs to be in school!!!!!” Before delta, we were hanging on by a thread, focused on the hope of IPL this fall to help us address what can only be called a crisis in our home. An ongoing, critical, five alarm fire. So for us, it’s not a simple question of “is it safe?” It’s a complex weighing of competing harms. In the end, the risks of staying home outweigh the risk if delta.

The people who advocated against in person school last fall and winter should be quiet now. Many of us explicitly said that a major reason we needed in person school back then was because we didn’t know what the future held and we feared Covid had surprises in store that would make school more difficult. Some of us advocated for starting the school year early last year and shutting down for an extended winter break/DL session to weather the winter surge. Some of us lobbied consistently for outdoor school and shortened school days. All we heard was that those things were logistically too difficult, that we didn’t know what we were talking about, that the smart thing to do was to start virtually and return to school when cases died down or teachers could be vaccinated.

We were right. You were wrong. And now we are all a little screwed together. It sucks, but it doesn’t make me inclined to listen to you this time.

Give your kids delta to own the “is it safe” folks, that’ll show ‘em!

You were lobbying for things that WERE unreasonable and logistically impossible in a public school district. The people who told you that were correct.

oh right … someone it was impossible for DCPS, but possible for private schools, Catholic schools, and plenty of other jurisdictions in the US and abroad.

until y’all deal with the piss-poor decisionmaking that closed schools, you can’t be trusted to weigh in on Delta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe if you hadn’t been crying wolf for the past year and a half, you’d have some ground to be commenting. but the fact is the “it’s not safe!!” crowd dug us into a deep, deep hole by keeping schools closed when it was completely uneccesary. And now here we are with kids who have to go back to school to avoid social, emotional, and educational harms. You don’t just disrupt THREE YEARS of schooling. You don’t.

+100

If my kid had gotten even a small amount of in person school in the last 18 months, I might be among the people raising alarms about Delta. I agree it’s a serious issue and it’s making sending my kid back to school very, very difficult for me. There are absolutely days where I just want to homeschool. Ask my husband: we’ve been 9 rounds on this and I am not taking Delta lightly.

The problem is that before Delta even emerged, we had alarm bells ringing all over our life, saying “This kid needs to be in school!!!!!” Before delta, we were hanging on by a thread, focused on the hope of IPL this fall to help us address what can only be called a crisis in our home. An ongoing, critical, five alarm fire. So for us, it’s not a simple question of “is it safe?” It’s a complex weighing of competing harms. In the end, the risks of staying home outweigh the risk if delta.

The people who advocated against in person school last fall and winter should be quiet now. Many of us explicitly said that a major reason we needed in person school back then was because we didn’t know what the future held and we feared Covid had surprises in store that would make school more difficult. Some of us advocated for starting the school year early last year and shutting down for an extended winter break/DL session to weather the winter surge. Some of us lobbied consistently for outdoor school and shortened school days. All we heard was that those things were logistically too difficult, that we didn’t know what we were talking about, that the smart thing to do was to start virtually and return to school when cases died down or teachers could be vaccinated.

We were right. You were wrong. And now we are all a little screwed together. It sucks, but it doesn’t make me inclined to listen to you this time.

Give your kids delta to own the “is it safe” folks, that’ll show ‘em!

You were lobbying for things that WERE unreasonable and logistically impossible in a public school district. The people who told you that were correct.

oh right … someone it was impossible for DCPS, but possible for private schools, Catholic schools, and plenty of other jurisdictions in the US and abroad.

until y’all deal with the piss-poor decisionmaking that closed schools, you can’t be trusted to weigh in on Delta.

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

[Anonymous]

wait wait....the "virtual option" people are saying that they are proposing a REASONABLE thing that is logistically easy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe if you hadn’t been crying wolf for the past year and a half, you’d have some ground to be commenting. but the fact is the “it’s not safe!!” crowd dug us into a deep, deep hole by keeping schools closed when it was completely uneccesary. And now here we are with kids who have to go back to school to avoid social, emotional, and educational harms. You don’t just disrupt THREE YEARS of schooling. You don’t.

+100

If my kid had gotten even a small amount of in person school in the last 18 months, I might be among the people raising alarms about Delta. I agree it’s a serious issue and it’s making sending my kid back to school very, very difficult for me. There are absolutely days where I just want to homeschool. Ask my husband: we’ve been 9 rounds on this and I am not taking Delta lightly.

The problem is that before Delta even emerged, we had alarm bells ringing all over our life, saying “This kid needs to be in school!!!!!” Before delta, we were hanging on by a thread, focused on the hope of IPL this fall to help us address what can only be called a crisis in our home. An ongoing, critical, five alarm fire. So for us, it’s not a simple question of “is it safe?” It’s a complex weighing of competing harms. In the end, the risks of staying home outweigh the risk if delta.

The people who advocated against in person school last fall and winter should be quiet now. Many of us explicitly said that a major reason we needed in person school back then was because we didn’t know what the future held and we feared Covid had surprises in store that would make school more difficult. Some of us advocated for starting the school year early last year and shutting down for an extended winter break/DL session to weather the winter surge. Some of us lobbied consistently for outdoor school and shortened school days. All we heard was that those things were logistically too difficult, that we didn’t know what we were talking about, that the smart thing to do was to start virtually and return to school when cases died down or teachers could be vaccinated.

We were right. You were wrong. And now we are all a little screwed together. It sucks, but it doesn’t make me inclined to listen to you this time.

Give your kids delta to own the “is it safe” folks, that’ll show ‘em!

You were lobbying for things that WERE unreasonable and logistically impossible in a public school district. The people who told you that were correct.

oh right … someone it was impossible for DCPS, but possible for private schools, Catholic schools, and plenty of other jurisdictions in the US and abroad.

until y’all deal with the piss-poor decisionmaking that closed schools, you can’t be trusted to weigh in on Delta.

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

Oh ffs. Schools were open *everywhere*. Providence RI. NYC. Berlin. Paris.

[Anonymous]

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.

A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).

For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.

Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.

It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!

Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.

Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.

It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.

A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).

For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.

Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.

It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!

Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.

Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.

It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

No. You’re seeing what you want to see, but that’s not the case. The title of this thread is that all schools should offer a virtual option. And many of us strongly disagree. But if DCPS had a central virtual option for anyone who wanted it, which they should have done from the start, many of us would applaud it. Don’t get it twisted, and on every side of this issue, don’t let a very vocal minority drown out the voices of reason.

Actually, many people do oppose a virtual option for anyone who chooses it, and that’s not an extreme or unreasonable position. In fact, it’s a position embraced by many experts and policy makers as well as DCPS and the mayor, because such an option would be abused by people who are not in a position to or won’t make their kids succeed in virtual school. There is a reason school - real, in person school - has been mandatory for a long time. Most other countries don’t even allow homeschooling as readily as the US. Kids need to be in school for their own good and protection. Delta is not a sufficiently dangerous virus to kids that it will break that long-standing principle, especially in the eyes of policy makers in jurisdictions with lots of vulnerable kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.

A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).

For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.

Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.

It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!

Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.

Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.

It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.

This. Why is it that other countries were able to be so much more flexible? Germany for instance (not known for its lack of bureaucracy), was able to simply half classes and pivot to a schedule where A and B groups would attend on alternating days, when it was deemed necessary for social distancing. And they were able to do this quickly and flexibly. The quick pivots obviously sucked for parents, but not more than simply keeping schools closed completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

I love that you are citing Emily Oster as a bad source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster saying “nobody is arguing against virtual, only against all schools having virtual” - please review the last 20 pages of this thread. Most virtual proponents and I think every one on this thread in the past few dozen pages want a virtual *option* and in some cases not to lose OOB spots (that’s not my position). So there are a few people including those with very high risk (vaccinated! But it doesn’t always take in immunocompromised and some cannot medically get) family members at home. And it’s been pages of vitriol from the IPL set here, so angry, blaming everyone who wants a virtual option now for school closures last year. I can tell you some of the people who want to ban virtual for everyone are getting their info from Emily Oster who is the science equivalent of Geraldo Rivera. The real sources tell us that much is not known about delta but what is suspected is that it is very hard on kids. It’s not anxiety to want a virtual option for the 5 or so months until the under 12 set can be vaccinated. Period.

I love that you are citing Emily Oster as a bad source.

Yeah, randomly pooping on Emily Oster makes me think you are LESS of a person to be listened to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.

A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).

For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.

Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.

It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!

Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.

Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.

It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.

This. Why is it that other countries were able to be so much more flexible? Germany for instance (not known for its lack of bureaucracy), was able to simply half classes and pivot to a schedule where A and B groups would attend on alternating days, when it was deemed necessary for social distancing. And they were able to do this quickly and flexibly. The quick pivots obviously sucked for parents, but not more than simply keeping schools closed completely.

As someone who wants my kids to be in class but doesn’t feel comfortable, I would LOVE this. We recently pivoted to virtual after reading DCPS mitigation efforts, but virtual will be a sad second-best option. We hope to be back soon.

But the reason we’re here is in large part because we have no social net to support families during this, and also because parents demanded nothing less than 100% 5 days a week school because we lack that social net. Now we’re in this crappy binary of either have schools open entirely at max capacity, and 50% of unvaxxed children will get covid within three months, or classrooms shut down because of exposures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes exactly. Private and parochial schools have flexibility a city wide school district don’t have. Would love to see examples of other districts with 50k + students completing overhauling their schedules, their school buildings and infrastructure mid year. 18 months and You still don’t know what you’re talking about

I'm the PP who said I was lobbying for things like outdoor school and shortened days last fall and was told it was not possible. You are incorrect, and the fact that you view this as "completely overhauling" schedules, buildings, and infrastructure is a huge part of the problem.

A shortened school day is not a complete overhaul. It's called early release, and it's really straightforward for elementary school students. It does not even require much adjustment to schedule. You do morning schedule as planned, and then release before lunch time. You drop specials if necessary, or turn them into a virtual program or home study (send kids home with art supplies, provide a Spanish lesson virtually, assign them a PE activity, etc.).

For kids who live far from the school or whose parents cannot pick them up midday (which will be a much smaller subset of the total school population) you provide a CARES classroom type setting that is focused on outdoor play. Fewer kids, mostly outdoors, and you are addressing most of the concerns. To address food insecurity, school lunch is a bag lunch (which is what we are doing this year anyway) and kids can take it home or eat it in the CARES environment, but you avoid the lunchroom unmasked issues.

Outdoor school is harder but making outdoor time a priority is not. If possible set up tents, and then tell teachers to do class outdoors whenever possible. The end. If it's not possible, you're indoors and you rely on masks. With a shortened day, this isn't that big of a deal.

It is cheaper to provide children with outdoor gear (coats, hats, mittens, etc.) than to provide everyone with a device and ensure they all have access to the internet and a place to do virtual school. Ask me how I know this!

Everyone who told me last year that my suggestions were unrealistic? I am not interested in your input anymore. Most of what I suggested last summer and fall in order to get kids into school, other than the shortened day, has either already been implemented in the spring or is being implemented this year. Thing how ahead of the game we'd be if we'd done it last year instead of spending most of last year trying to make DL work for kids. Including tons of kids who it was NEVER GOING TO WORK FOR -- very young students, housing insecure kids, kids with IEPs that cannot be accommodated virtually, kids whose parents work full time and cannot afford childcare, etc.

Everyone telling me that what I asked for was unrealistic: what we actually did was unrealistic. Which is why we are now in a situation where if these kids don't get into a classroom now, during a surge and a variant that seems to be impacting kids more, we're in a dire situation.

It's time to be quiet. Figure out what works for your family. If that's homeschooling, great. If it's just keeping them home after school starts in protest agains not getting a virtual option, go for it. I will support you. I'm fine with a centralized virtual option open to some percentage of the district's kids (I think it should be capped and I do think you should have to have a reason, though I don't think it should be restricted to kids with a proven health condition). But let schools pivot and make this work. It's possible -- schools have been doing this all over the world for 18 months! Let's learn from them and figure it out.

I could listen to you rant for days, you go! The only thing I disagree with is that we could have returned in person all day, even without outdoor lunch etc. What you were advocating for was an attempt to compromise with the union’s insistence that it could never be safe. an admirable effort but as we are now seeing, nothing will ever be safe enough for that crew. But yeah, a minimally functional compromise would have been half days.