Reply to How is first day going for DCPS kids?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "How is first day going for DCPS kids?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and [b]the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit[/b] (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

[/quote]

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?[/quote]

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, [i][b]this isn't entirely about you and your kid![/b][/i] The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.    [/quote]

Your previous post said the goal was to not lose kids.  So losing one type of kid is a ‘legitimate’ concern; losing my kids — or kids of other DCUMers — apparently is not factor worthy of consideration.

In any event, my child, and surely quite a few others, loves in-person school and excels at it.  He is not flawed if DL is a problem, because DL is not age-appropriate for elementary.  But we’re stuck with it, so the goal should be able to make it work as well as possible for all kids.

One thing that should have happened:  there should have been IT training for just those who need it, pissibly delivered by someone (or some software) other than classroom teachers.[/quote]

I hope you are a troll and not really this self-involved. Or lack even basic levels of reading comprehension. Let's dig deeper into your reply.

[i]"Your previous post said the goal was to not lose kids.  So losing one type of kid is a ‘legitimate’ concern; losing my kids — or kids of other DCUMers — apparently is not factor worthy of consideration."[/i] I didn't say the goal was not to lose kids. I said the goal was to minimize the aggregate impact of DL by weighing starting slow and building a technology baseline (i.e. boring some kids for  couple of weeks) against the impact of having kids who don't understand the technology being lost for an entire year because they lack the proper foundation. And I didn't say one kid or PP's kid "wasn't worthy of consideration". What I said was that it wasn't [b]all about their kid[/b]. See the difference? I am not arguing your kid won't be bored by two weeks of tech instruction. I am arguing that your kid's detriment isn't the only consideration. Can you honestly not see the difference? There's a victim complex pervasive on DCUM where somehow if someone isn't considering only your needs or wants then they are completely disregarding your concerns.

[i]there should have been IT training for just those who need it[/i] - This is an acknowledgment that there is a technology gap that needs to be closed. And you seem to be arguing that it should have been closed by some other means. That's not an illogical argument on its face. It begs the question of who was going to provide the training, how were they to be paid, how could that have worked when DCPS didn't bother to distribute the technology until right before school started, teachers didn't populate Teams and other resources until right before school, or in some cases after school began, etc. But at its core your comment makes clear that your position is that your family should not be inconvenienced by having to sit through tech training, even if (hypothetically) a majority of students would benefit from it. You have the right to be selfish. But if you want an education system that cares only about your needs or the needs of people with identical social and financial capabilities then you need to either home school or pony up for GDS or Sidwell.

[i]"He is not flawed if DL is a problem"[/i] - I honestly don't know what this means. Let's be clear here; PP introduced their "ADD" kid, not me. And then they hid behind it. And the use of the word "flawed" is, I would argue, intentionally loaded. The irony here is you and your PP friend seem intent on leaning into your kid's special needs as a justification for why DCPS should behave (or not behave) in a certain way, but you cannot understand that the effort to close the technology gap is DCPS' way of trying to accommodate someone else's need; technology gaps and lack of in-home resources to solve them. I'm sitting here trying to figure out why that is. All I can come up with is that at your core you believe that your kid's ADD or LD isn't your "fault" or the kid's "fault", but that the poverty or lack of technology or in-home support that caused DCPS to spend two weeks closing the technology is somehow that kid's "fault". I guess they should have made better choices and been born into more affluent or educated families.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics