The comments to the ArlNow article sum this up perfectly, starting with this:

I can't believe how the people supporting that one side of the issue conducted themselves. Completely inappropriate. They should be ashamed.

In contrast sure, the people on the other side let their emotions get away from them, but as they're morally in the right I'm going to give them a pass for the lapse in decorum.

https://www.arlnow.com/2021/04/23/tensions-over-virtual-and-in-person-education-boil-over-in-school-board-meeting/#disqus_thread

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

I think they mainly switch back to virtual because their friends aren't in-person and because there are so few classmates in the classroom with them, and because there are still teachers teaching remotely so the students are going to school to learn online.

I don't really understand the "my friends aren't there" excuse. Are their friends with them when they're logged in from home? What's the difference? Nevertheless, I really feel fewer would have reverted to virtual if there were a substantial # of students actually attending in-person. Individual school stats could shed some light on the real "why's" at each school.

They don’t know. They haven’t asked. At least at our HS. I doubt they really want to know why. Or frankly care.

I don’t care. In-person instruction has been offered to them, and now they’re not going because they don’t like it?! Nope. I don’t care. Give their seats to families that want them, four days a week. That is exactly what is happening at our high school. I don’t need to know why your special snowflake doesn’t like it.

Are those white ladies willing to provide childcare after school to all the Latino children who otherwise can't come to a 5 day in person because no aftercare will be provided (and they can't afford to hire help given the money they are struggling to make)? Also will they take care of the kids if they happen to get infected with covid because the parents won't be able to swing it?

But they seemed to care so much about how these kids were suffering when they said how much they would benefit from going back to school 5x per week. I don't understand where that empathy has gone now that people from the community have explained the problem to them in simple terms. Hmmm seems weird.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, 11 pages later and nobody cares about this lady who was shouted down by a bunch of white parents anymore; instead it's just these selfsame parents shouting some more about how their kids need full time school 5 days a week. Better not get in their way. This is what they want, and what other people want is immaterial to them achieving their goal.

To be clear: These two speakers talked about having bigger problems in the current environment than full time school for their kids. They talked about food insecurity and the potential to go hungry. They talked about job loss. They talked about fear for their lives because the virus hit the latino community harder than it hit surrounding white areas and caused more death. They talked about needing to provide comfort and care to kids who had lost family members -- cousins, aunts and uncles, and even parents during this epidemic.

They also talked about the difficulties of managing childcare. the second speaker in particular talked about not being able to send a pre-K child back to school because both of those parents worked and neither had been vaccinated, so that if the child was exposed at school and needed to be quarantined at home, that would not be possible because it would endanger the parents (moreover they would be working).

So all these white ladies have the ability to sit with their kid in front of the ipad all day and complain about it (or at least some do), but none of them seem to understand or care what about the much more significant problems their southern neighbors are feeling. I'm not saying that iPad burnout and hyperactivity aren't bad, but these can be alleviated somewhat with a babysitter, outside time, playing games with mom and dad, etc. You don't solve a dead dad or insufficient food or homelessness with that.

It didn't take long for the focus to turn back to what (I mean who) really matters, right?

You guys sure are something. I won't say what.

lmao I'll say it then.

They're marshmallows

soft
easily flattened (when faces with a challenge)
And very very white

Wow, 11 pages later and nobody cares about this lady who was shouted down by a bunch of white parents anymore; instead it's just these selfsame parents shouting some more about how their kids need full time school 5 days a week. Better not get in their way. This is what they want, and what other people want is immaterial to them achieving their goal.

To be clear: These two speakers talked about having bigger problems in the current environment than full time school for their kids. They talked about food insecurity and the potential to go hungry. They talked about job loss. They talked about fear for their lives because the virus hit the latino community harder than it hit surrounding white areas and caused more death. They talked about needing to provide comfort and care to kids who had lost family members -- cousins, aunts and uncles, and even parents during this epidemic.

They also talked about the difficulties of managing childcare. the second speaker in particular talked about not being able to send a pre-K child back to school because both of those parents worked and neither had been vaccinated, so that if the child was exposed at school and needed to be quarantined at home, that would not be possible because it would endanger the parents (moreover they would be working).

So all these white ladies have the ability to sit with their kid in front of the ipad all day and complain about it (or at least some do), but none of them seem to understand or care what about the much more significant problems their southern neighbors are feeling. I'm not saying that iPad burnout and hyperactivity aren't bad, but these can be alleviated somewhat with a babysitter, outside time, playing games with mom and dad, etc. You don't solve a dead dad or insufficient food or homelessness with that.

It didn't take long for the focus to turn back to what (I mean who) really matters, right?

You guys sure are something. I won't say what.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

Ok great. So they can continue to stay hybrid and the families who would like more in-person days should be able to get that as well. No one is forcing these people back in the classroom. But they’re trying to stop my kindergartner (who hates Teams meetings and is struggling with class on an iPad) from getting more in-person instruction. So yeah, I see my kid struggling and I’m going to send emails to the SB pushing for more reopening at least for the younger kids. Why are these other families’ preferences standing in the way of more in-person days for my 6 year old?

It's just kindergarten! Less instruction during a pandemic will not keep them from Harvard.

Let her play! That's how kid learn at this age. Everything else will fall into place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

Ok great. So they can continue to stay hybrid and the families who would like more in-person days should be able to get that as well. No one is forcing these people back in the classroom. But they’re trying to stop my kindergartner (who hates Teams meetings and is struggling with class on an iPad) from getting more in-person instruction. So yeah, I see my kid struggling and I’m going to send emails to the SB pushing for more reopening at least for the younger kids. Why are these other families’ preferences standing in the way of more in-person days for my 6 year old?

Exactly - we need to flood Duran and the SB drilling home this point. The folks that aren't comfortable with sending their kids to school full-time have an option.. everyone else does not.

I actually feel pretty hopeless about all this. It's as if he stuck his head firmly up his butt on the issue of RTS and is now doubling down that that's the most appropriate place for it to be. I'll suppose I'll just continue writing and begin actively recruiting others to do likewise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

Ok great. So they can continue to stay hybrid and the families who would like more in-person days should be able to get that as well. No one is forcing these people back in the classroom. But they’re trying to stop my kindergartner (who hates Teams meetings and is struggling with class on an iPad) from getting more in-person instruction. So yeah, I see my kid struggling and I’m going to send emails to the SB pushing for more reopening at least for the younger kids. Why are these other families’ preferences standing in the way of more in-person days for my 6 year old?

Exactly - we need to flood Duran and the SB drilling home this point. The folks that aren't comfortable with sending their kids to school full-time have an option.. everyone else does not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

I think they mainly switch back to virtual because their friends aren't in-person and because there are so few classmates in the classroom with them, and because there are still teachers teaching remotely so the students are going to school to learn online.

I don't really understand the "my friends aren't there" excuse. Are their friends with them when they're logged in from home? What's the difference? Nevertheless, I really feel fewer would have reverted to virtual if there were a substantial # of students actually attending in-person. Individual school stats could shed some light on the real "why's" at each school.

They don’t know. They haven’t asked. At least at our HS. I doubt they really want to know why. Or frankly care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

Ok. So then why aren't more people pushing back on all of this? There is APE and they are doing what they are doing, but, it sounds like some percentage of people on here are not part of or in favor of APE, but, still want more days. Where are you all? How can we further elevate/heighten this issue and force action? This is not at all impossible. Duran is just unwilling. If someone lights a fire under him, he will make it happen.

Who says people aren't pushing vacl? It's clear the SB is getting tons of angry emails. They said as much last night. It just seems the SB is choosing not to do anything about it.

I’m not a member of either group and I’ve sent countless (I’m sure unread) emails pushing for more days and a plan laid out for the fall-concrete plan, no hoping for 5 days. The SB needs a flood of emails to know that most people aren’t happy. I no longer have a dog in this fight. My kid’s graduating but I still feel I need to advocate for the kids who will be back in the fall. It falls of deaf ears I know but I’m won’t stop trying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

Do you seriously buy into the spin that much? That is such a false narrative it is absurd. APS is so behind on RTS. How in the world is anyone okay with 2 days a week this year. Many of us sat on the sideline waiting for rates to go down and vaccination to ramp up. The "stay the course" crowd are the now the radicals. IT IS TIME TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL. Full stop. I can't believe folks are so dug in on this that can't see the obvious. And the parents trying to make this a race issue? Shame on them. They are the ones using POCs as pawns.

Uh...kids are back in school. You sound like that ridiculous TT guy on AEM.

It is very concerning that people think 2 days a week of in-person instruction is school.

Hey, c’mon now. It’s ROBUST.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

I don't get this view. Half of ELL and disadvantaged elementary students are in hybrid. Presumably those are the kids who were struggling the most with DL. Why not offer them more days? The kids who are happy to keep DL can do so. What more privileged students choose shouldn't matter.

I think TT addressed this. A lot of the families have made childcare and transportation arrangements around the current Hybrid set-up. It would be very difficult for them to change at this point in the year. That was how I understood what she was saying.

Ok great. So they can continue to stay hybrid and the families who would like more in-person days should be able to get that as well. No one is forcing these people back in the classroom. But they’re trying to stop my kindergartner (who hates Teams meetings and is struggling with class on an iPad) from getting more in-person instruction. So yeah, I see my kid struggling and I’m going to send emails to the SB pushing for more reopening at least for the younger kids. Why are these other families’ preferences standing in the way of more in-person days for my 6 year old?

It’s good to see some folks break away from the sheeple/rules following at all costs mentality in Arlington. It’s just odd that a self-styled “smart” county has performed so strangely throughout all this. I mean, throw a dart at a map of the country and you’ll hit a place that’s done it better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duran needs to do the work to see if it's feasible to bring back any of
K-2 4 days a week. Ask each principal how many classes could or couldn't be brought back without massive restructuring. Present the data showing what is or isn't possible. Stop with the damn hand waiving. Prove to parents that you've actually looked into it.

Did you watch the board meeting? Priddy and Kanninen literally asked that question almost verbatim

The board questions definitely feel staged/planted at this point. They come off as recited/rehearsed and inauthentic. It would also explain why they are all generally on the same page and not meaningfully questioning anything that is going on.

Duran hasn't show that he's meaningfully looked into what is possible for K-2. He says it's too hard to bring back all students for 4 days so he's not going to even try.

Agree. The subtext is that disadvantaged kids are disproportionately staying virtual so there’s no incentive to try to provide more than 2 days in person for hybrid right now.

DING DING DING. Here’s the real answer. Dr. Duran clearly does not care about working for all families in APS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there any discussion about the COVID case data, discrepancies with report, W and L Outbreak they’re investigating?

Good question and I’d like to know the answer on this as well. Miranda’s supporters have decided that the risks for contracting COVID are low for their families and want the schools open while the some parents in Arlington, particularly POC, are not convinced of that. That was the biggest takeaway for me from watching the board meeting and the numbers released by APS on movement of hybrid/virtual.

It is sad to see how divided this county has gotten, and it’s along racial and economic lines. The rich parents are and have been taking their kids out of APS and putting them in private schools because they can’t get what they want from APS. Those kids who will remain in APS will be the real collateral damage from all this anger from these parents. Would not be surprised if APS sees the good teachers leave in droves.

When this happens it will be because APS refuses to give its staff raises