Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her continued insistence on 3ft is worrying. Where does she think all the extra staff will come from to make smaller class sizes? Or the space, in a city? This just compounds the harms to the minority kids who are concentrated in districts still even listening to teachers unions.

No. We are IPL with 3 feet distance. Our kinder rooms have 24 students.
The 3 feet does not matter. It just makes the classroom look like old school rows.

Classrooms can open at full capacity with 3 feet of distance.

That's neat but there are schools that are saying they can't open fully for all kids 5 days a week because they can't accommodate everyone with 3-foot distancing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish this working mothers point had been made a wee bit earlier by her but better late than never.

Right like before shuttered schools forced 1 million plus women out of the workforce and damaged their earning prospects for some for the rest of their lives. But yeah. Way to go I guess?

Does anyone else have mother friends who seemed enraged that anyone pointed this out? Like it was this weird issue in my peer circle that if you were a mother you had to just suck it up and not say anything about your earnings prospects being altered for your lifetime.

They were enraged that people are enraged?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her continued insistence on 3ft is worrying. Where does she think all the extra staff will come from to make smaller class sizes? Or the space, in a city? This just compounds the harms to the minority kids who are concentrated in districts still even listening to teachers unions.

No. We are IPL with 3 feet distance. Our kinder rooms have 24 students.
The 3 feet does not matter. It just makes the classroom look like old school rows.

Classrooms can open at full capacity with 3 feet of distance.

Maybe your particular room does. But have you been to other schools, pray tell? HS and MS will NOT be able to open with 3 feet.

Also, how do you eat lunch?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish this working mothers point had been made a wee bit earlier by her but better late than never.

Right like before shuttered schools forced 1 million plus women out of the workforce and damaged their earning prospects for some for the rest of their lives. But yeah. Way to go I guess?

Does anyone else have mother friends who seemed enraged that anyone pointed this out? Like it was this weird issue in my peer circle that if you were a mother you had to just suck it up and not say anything about your earnings prospects being altered for your lifetime.

Anonymous wrote:Her continued insistence on 3ft is worrying. Where does she think all the extra staff will come from to make smaller class sizes? Or the space, in a city? This just compounds the harms to the minority kids who are concentrated in districts still even listening to teachers unions.

No. We are IPL with 3 feet distance. Our kinder rooms have 24 students.
The 3 feet does not matter. It just makes the classroom look like old school rows.

Classrooms can open at full capacity with 3 feet of distance.

Anonymous wrote:I wish this working mothers point had been made a wee bit earlier by her but better late than never.

Right like before shuttered schools forced 1 million plus women out of the workforce and damaged their earning prospects for some for the rest of their lives. But yeah. Way to go I guess?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should call for an end to the virtual option
The virtual option will potentially mess things up, and other countries are not doing it.

Yes.
Our (big, DC) private school sent an email yesterday:

Everyone will be in-person, full time. There will be no remote classes. If your child has an extraordinary medical need and you need a remote option
for the entire school year you must reach out to the head of school by next week to discuss.

Schools need to draw a line in the sand or a small sector of parents will abuse it.

DCPS is going to have a harder time putting that genie back in the bottle though.

once the pandemic is over (and now all adults and kids over 12 can get a vaccine, in the fall likely even younger children will get the vaccine) I dont see why public schools should offer a remote option. there are already plenty of online homeschooling options, people who do not want to send kids to school can chose those. people who send their kids to public school have the right to have a fully functioning in person school (not an in person school with the laptop open)

Anonymous wrote:Her continued insistence on 3ft is worrying. Where does she think all the extra staff will come from to make smaller class sizes? Or the space, in a city? This just compounds the harms to the minority kids who are concentrated in districts still even listening to teachers unions.

She's using the crisis to get more stuff for teachers. A worthy goal, perhaps, but ok to hold students hostage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should call for an end to the virtual option
The virtual option will potentially mess things up, and other countries are not doing it.

Eh, there is likely to be an online option for some time, and there are ways to do it that aren't disruptive. There could be a district-wide virtual program, for example, so that kids all over the city are in classes with teachers who are teaching 100 percent virtual.

Agree. It will be absolutely inferior to in person learning, but that's not my problem. What I don't want is virtual learning dragging down my kids' in classroom experience.

Exactly. I think there should be no virtual options created. Parents who want to stay home can homeschool.

Her continued insistence on 3ft is worrying. Where does she think all the extra staff will come from to make smaller class sizes? Or the space, in a city? This just compounds the harms to the minority kids who are concentrated in districts still even listening to teachers unions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should call for an end to the virtual option
The virtual option will potentially mess things up, and other countries are not doing it.

Eh, there is likely to be an online option for some time, and there are ways to do it that aren't disruptive. There could be a district-wide virtual program, for example, so that kids all over the city are in classes with teachers who are teaching 100 percent virtual.

Agree. It will be absolutely inferior to in person learning, but that's not my problem. What I don't want is virtual learning dragging down my kids' in classroom experience.

Yes, finally.

Teachers and parents should always have been partners in doing what is best for kids. And I say that as someone who felt school closures were sometimes merited based on case rates and to protect teachers. But not enough effort was put into coming up with solutions that didn’t put the full burden of the pandemic on children, especially very young children, and parents, especially working parents with limited means for childcare. That was never okay.

I’m glad to see this. It’s a step in the right direction.

Anonymous wrote:Simulcast is extra work for teachers. In middle/high schools the current IPL is no different from distance learning because children are still on devices and the teacher teaches from the device. If teachers have dedicated DL classrooms it throws off planning for the school. There is no longer sufficient justification for this.

Correct. Online school needs to be a separate school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:whoa. this is good news.

+1

PP here. I take it back. The statement is littered with loopholes designed to leverage the crisis. So it really means nothing.

Simulcast is extra work for teachers. In middle/high schools the current IPL is no different from distance learning because children are still on devices and the teacher teaches from the device. If teachers have dedicated DL classrooms it throws off planning for the school. There is no longer sufficient justification for this.