Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

This is a great explanation that really explains everything coming out of teaching and learning this year. They really screwed themselves and everyone with the lack of planning and constant model shifting. Also, this is a product of APS taking a “survey” approach to deciding who gets in person instruction. Should have started with who needs it and staffed that way. This is what DC did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

This is a great explanation that really explains everything coming out of teaching and learning this year. They really screwed themselves and everyone with the lack of planning and constant model shifting. Also, this is a product of APS taking a “survey” approach to deciding who gets in person instruction. Should have started with who needs it and staffed that way. This is what DC did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

I understand your frustration. The HR guy (I'm blanking on his name) explained this to the SB a few meetings ago- basically they were initially planning to use CARES/CDC guidelines, but then realized they would also have to consider it under the ADA since that was the legal rqmt, so rather than making it a 3 step process (apply under CARES, get denied, apply under ADA, get denied, appeal) they streamlined it to just apply under the ADA.

I suspect the real reason, however is something along these lines.
Teaching and Learning is in way over its head- and cannot figure out how to manage this. They are constantly changing the model, which correspondingly changes the staffing needs. So initially it was going to be hybrid classes and virtual classes. Virtual classes would have a virtual teacher, hybrid classes would have an in person teacher. Under that model- there is a significant need for virtual teachers, and so it made sense to be liberal with granting virtual teaching requests. Then they start pushing out 'concurrent'. Initially it is just going to be concurrent for a few specialized high school classes, then it becomes all of high school, then all of middle school, and now going down to third grade. This of course takes place over many many months. Well no sane person really thinks that having a remote teacher, with a largely in person class, is in any sense an appropriate teaching model. So now APS really doesn't want to grant any requests to teach virtually b/c (other than k-2) it has largely done away with its 'virtual' positions. Theoretically, there could be a teacher who currently teaches 4th grade for example, but is fully qualified to teach 1st grade- so they should at least consider the request and see if they should move to teaching 1st grade virtually. There is also a fair amount of doublespeak happening at syphax, which makes it hard to trust anything that is said.

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is that so many teachers are submitting total bs accommodation requests that it puts APS in a position of having to take a hard line on all requests. If the people submitting requests based on close relatives with risk factors were limited only to people who actually live with people with critical health needs, it would be a lot easier for APS to be lenient in granting those requests even though they don’t strictly have to. When you have people making requests to teach virtually because their dad has a heart condition but dad lives an hour away and the teacher isn’t responsible for any direct care, that’s a garbage pretense to try to get an accommodation that has no grounds other than the teacher would rather keep working from home. APS can’t feasibly drill down into all of these requests and figure out what valid and what’s a pretense, so instead they deny all of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

You are correct. However APS did not tell anyone applying that they were using ADA. They still listed the CARES/CDC guidelines but then used ADA to assess the applications.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people don't understand what an accommodation is under the ADA. It doesn't mean you get to work remotely forever. One accommodation is to put plexiglass up. The one used in schools is masks and distance. Just because you are high risk doesn't guarantee work from home. People should really read the regs and guidance that has come out before they make these assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:How can there be small group work when the teacher can’t leave the desk?

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is that so many teachers are submitting total bs accommodation requests that it puts APS in a position of having to take a hard line on all requests. If the people submitting requests based on close relatives with risk factors were limited only to people who actually live with people with critical health needs, it would be a lot easier for APS to be lenient in granting those requests even though they don’t strictly have to. When you have people making requests to teach virtually because their dad has a heart condition but dad lives an hour away and the teacher isn’t responsible for any direct care, that’s a garbage pretense to try to get an accommodation that has no grounds other than the teacher would rather keep working from home. APS can’t feasibly drill down into all of these requests and figure out what valid and what’s a pretense, so instead they deny all of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A lot of people are applying for accommodations because they have babies at home or an elderly parent, which aren’t grounds for accommodations under the ADA.

Anonymous wrote:How can there be small group work when the teacher can’t leave the desk?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A bit backwards in reality. APS tried to hire monitors to provide those accommodations, but didn't get enough..thus they started denying requests. They actually claim they gave them, but said: "you are provided the short-term telework accommodation until students return to school" and.."extending your accommodation will harm the organization when students return"

Teachers who have had transplants, or are currently receiving chemo, have been denied. Vaccinations might mean some people with legit CDC high-risk from Covid health issues, might be okay returning, but others either won't be despite vaccine, or can't get vaccine due to their health issues.

Honest question—do you know this firsthand? The person/people currently receiving chemo should be maybe on medical leave anyway...But it would surprise me if they denied someone post-transplant (and also, would be surprised if there are a large number of APS teachers who are transplant recipients). For the “CDC high-risk” folks, I understand the concern but, to be fair, having hypertension or a high BMI are not disabilities and if they were, we really should be picketing outside of every grocery store in the land bc I promise you people are working there every day who are also in CDC high-risk categories. But I am concerned if APS is denying WFH to employees going through cancer treatment.

Yes, I know first hand. Transplant recipients were denied. Despite being on immunosuppressant drugs etc.

So, not to be obtuse, but by firsthand, you mean this is happening to you? Are you vaccinated? I just can’t see them denying transplant recipients (nor can I see this being more than a couple of APS employees).

I am vaccinated, and will be returning. I am an organ donor, not the recipient, but I do know this has happened to recipients. I have another CDC medical issue, that was initially approved (see other post). I have heard 16% of claims were approved, but am not sure if that includes those that were approved "until students return" like mine switched to. There hasn't been much transparency, and obviously I am not asking people what their issues were. I just happen to know some people and their issues, because I knew prior to the pandemic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re in the upper elementary group, so lessons will be concurrent. We chose distance learning rather than hybrid and I’m secretly hoping my kid’s teacher will remain virtual (medical exemption?) and the classrooms will have monitors. Is that possible, or will it only be in extraordinary circumstances where some sort of waiver is granted? Would they notify parents in advance?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. APS supposedly is taking a very strict approach to ADA accommodations now.

APS should follow the law, period. As long as it’s doing that, no one should complain.

I don’t know the laws around ADA but it APS seems to be denying most people that apply. The classroom monitor thing that fcps is doing seems to be less common in APS because fcps approved way more ADA requests.

A bit backwards in reality. APS tried to hire monitors to provide those accommodations, but didn't get enough..thus they started denying requests. They actually claim they gave them, but said: "you are provided the short-term telework accommodation until students return to school" and.."extending your accommodation will harm the organization when students return"

Teachers who have had transplants, or are currently receiving chemo, have been denied. Vaccinations might mean some people with legit CDC high-risk from Covid health issues, might be okay returning, but others either won't be despite vaccine, or can't get vaccine due to their health issues.

Honest question—do you know this firsthand? The person/people currently receiving chemo should be maybe on medical leave anyway...But it would surprise me if they denied someone post-transplant (and also, would be surprised if there are a large number of APS teachers who are transplant recipients). For the “CDC high-risk” folks, I understand the concern but, to be fair, having hypertension or a high BMI are not disabilities and if they were, we really should be picketing outside of every grocery store in the land bc I promise you people are working there every day who are also in CDC high-risk categories. But I am concerned if APS is denying WFH to employees going through cancer treatment.

Yes, I know first hand. Transplant recipients were denied. Despite being on immunosuppressant drugs etc.

So, not to be obtuse, but by firsthand, you mean this is happening to you? Are you vaccinated? I just can’t see them denying transplant recipients (nor can I see this being more than a couple of APS employees).