Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

I'm the PP, and none of the previous responses to you were mine.

I don't understand why you think that privileged, powerful people have no more effect on politics than poorer, less-privileged people? Especially local politics?

I'm not saying that you, personally made anything happen or not.

I didn't say "If you are relatively privileged, you can simply wish something were true, or maybe write one strongly-worded letter, and everyone will personally and instantly bend to your will."

That's ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that the more power a group collectively has, the more power it has.

Now, in MCPS, people who are usually kept firmly out of power have a LITTLE more support than in most places in society. But then I see people angry at this terrible perversion of What Should Be.

I would hope you're not the poster from that other thread last night who cried at how terrible wealthy people were being treated ("like dirt") and how the Title One schools get all the breaks. I'm sure you're not that person.

But you can't possibly be refuting that MCPS decisions-- even via state decisions-- are not influenced more by vocal, UMC-to-wealthy, law-conversant, white, well-resourced, highly-educated parents than the opposite, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

And who do you think applies pressure on Hogan? White wealthy donors.

So only wealthy white people want their kids in school? Wow.

It’s the kind of people who give him money, so he’s to them. Not that difficult to follow.

^bound to them

Is that kind of like how MCEA gives money to local politicians as well? And then they are "bound" to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so happy to see this update! Upgrade your masks everyone and go to school!

Only complete idiots think this is good news. Enjoy your kid’s subpar education for the remainder of the year, stuffed into auditoriums with no teachers. But they are socializing! (If you actually talked to your kid, you’d know the kids are absolutely miserable in the buildings right now)

Actually, I have talked to my kids about it. They absolutely want to be in school.

Mine too!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS teacher.

I agree this hasn't been handled all that well but I am relieved we are not going virtual. I want to teach in person. My students do better, NONE of the kids I teach (elementary) want to do virtual school. Groans of dread when they talk about it. My own kids (high school) do not want to go virtual. I am vaxxed and boosted. My HS kid had Covid before the break. Missed 1 1/2 week. Was like a cold. I caught it. Missed a few days before break. Was like a cold. The rest of my family had it as well and it was like a cold.

What I actually think should happen is: schools stay open, we mask, if you feel like you have a cold you test, if you get a positive you quarantine for 5 (calendar) days, go back to school/work. Close contacts keep going to school/work unless they become symptomatic as long as vaxxed/boosted.

At this point a lot of the reaction to the spread of Omicron is more psychological/emotional than rational. We have to keep putting one foot in front of the other and going to school and work. We never shut down for colds or even the flu before this and we shouldn't now either. Yes, it is spreading rapidly, but the staff shortages are due to the long quarantine which isn't really stopping the rapid spread of what is actually a pretty mild illness for vaccinated people.

Educating children is also a safety measure and an urgent, vital, societal need. It should have top priority and society should make sacrifices to do it correctly, every time. Every effort should be made to keep kids in school (and busses running, and food being served, etc, etc). We fail kids time and again. Another topic for another thread.

Well said. Agree with all of it. And I understand that if staff cannot meet the needs of the school then it is going to have to adjust. Like it or not, we are still in a pandemic. But as much as we can keep things operating, we need to do that. My high schooler and all of her friends far prefer to stay in school even if it’s not completely normal.

Yes, totally this. What I find so troubling about the "close, close, close" contingent is not that I necessarily oppose closures in any situation (e.g. when there is truly insufficient staff); it's that advocates seem stuck in a Groundhogs Day of March 2020 with no acknowledgment of how different our environment now is. We have a much better knowledge of COVID and its treatment. We know that the risks to children (and frankly, anyone under 50 yrs in good health) is minute. And of course, everyone, at least down to school age children, have had ample opportunity to be vaccinated. Wasn't this why we basically put the entire scientific community and economy to the task of developing and distributing vaccines nationwide in the first place? So we could resume our work, and lives, and school in person even as COVID ran its course?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

And who do you think applies pressure on Hogan? White wealthy donors.

So only wealthy white people want their kids in school? Wow.

It’s the kind of people who give him money, so he’s to them. Not that difficult to follow.

^bound to them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

And who do you think applies pressure on Hogan? White wealthy donors.

So only wealthy white people want their kids in school? Wow.

It’s the kind of people who give him money, so he’s to them. Not that difficult to follow.

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS teacher.

I agree this hasn't been handled all that well but I am relieved we are not going virtual. I want to teach in person. My students do better, NONE of the kids I teach (elementary) want to do virtual school. Groans of dread when they talk about it. My own kids (high school) do not want to go virtual. I am vaxxed and boosted. My HS kid had Covid before the break. Missed 1 1/2 week. Was like a cold. I caught it. Missed a few days before break. Was like a cold. The rest of my family had it as well and it was like a cold.

What I actually think should happen is: schools stay open, we mask, if you feel like you have a cold you test, if you get a positive you quarantine for 5 (calendar) days, go back to school/work. Close contacts keep going to school/work unless they become symptomatic as long as vaxxed/boosted.

At this point a lot of the reaction to the spread of Omicron is more psychological/emotional than rational. We have to keep putting one foot in front of the other and going to school and work. We never shut down for colds or even the flu before this and we shouldn't now either. Yes, it is spreading rapidly, but the staff shortages are due to the long quarantine which isn't really stopping the rapid spread of what is actually a pretty mild illness for vaccinated people.

Educating children is also a safety measure and an urgent, vital, societal need. It should have top priority and society should make sacrifices to do it correctly, every time. Every effort should be made to keep kids in school (and busses running, and food being served, etc, etc). We fail kids time and again. Another topic for another thread.

Thank you for this very rationale and thoughtful post. Thank you as well for everything you do, every day.

I was glad to keep my kids home last year - covid felt really scary with the information available in March-April 2020 and the risk was not worth it. My kids did pretty well in virtual, but really, really suffered socially. At the time I thought it was okay and we were all doing the best we could (which was true), but since they have been back in school this year, they have blossomed so far beyond where they were at home.

Given what I know now, I want them in school. We will mask with the best quality masks we can buy, reinforce the importance of distancing, and test everyone in our home regularly. It's not perfect, but it's what we have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so happy to see this update! Upgrade your masks everyone and go to school!

Only complete idiots think this is good news. Enjoy your kid’s subpar education for the remainder of the year, stuffed into auditoriums with no teachers. But they are socializing! (If you actually talked to your kid, you’d know the kids are absolutely miserable in the buildings right now)

They're not going to be stuffed in auditoriums without teachers for the remainder of the year. But if they pivoted to virtual, we know they would be stuck in that special slice of hell for the remainder of (or near to) the year. At least as of today, this is a big victory for many across teachers, students, and parents.

No, WE do not know.

You have no source at all for this invention of your imagination, except, what? That MCPS stayed virtual longer than it expected to when a novel virus first hit and people were dropping like flies, and no one was vaccinated?

Literally every district around here did the same. Some didn't stay virtual as long, but all of them "lied" when they said it was for "2 weeks" because it was a very specific situation with almost no information.

But sure, that definitely means that any pivot to virtual would end the same way. Absolutely.

I can't believe that those of us who advocated for a sensible, orderly preemptive pivot to virtual before all this mess were called the "hysterical" ones operating on "feelings," not "data."

The DATA predicted all of this spread, staffing issues, etc. would very likely happen if we reopened normally after winter break.

If we listened to you, we have DL and a Covid surge. This way we only get a Covid surge. I am rabidly anti-DL but I agree we all knew this was coming. Just like we all know it will be over on four weeks so closing and reopening schools isn’t worth it. Just get boosted, get a good mask, and cross your fingers.

Yes, if you "listened to me*" we'd certainly have a COVID surge, because we were always going to. And we would have DL, because that's what I suggested.

With "your way"-- achieved by "not listening to me"-- we have:

-A bunch of reactive nonsense and confusion from MCPS
-All kinds of predictable disruptions-- e.g., SOME kids clustered in the cafeteria doing make-work asynchronously, SOME kids stranded at bus stops, etc.
-A ton of schools going virtual ANYWAY because they will unless MCPS just decided to completely throw up their hands (which I always made exception for)
-At least a decent proportion of schools going virtual regardless because of lack of staffing
-Most likely more spread, or faster spread in the community and among kids-- who remain less-vaccinated than adults, but fine, I'll put that at the bottom

The thing is-- it's exactly because COVID was going to surge and then ebb in ~4 weeks anyway that we should have gone to virtual for 2-4 weeks. I've never claimed otherwise.

If very few schools really do go virtual because MCPS is saying, eff it, let it ride... people will come out of the other side in February, and whatever the consequences-- because you can't prove a counterfactual-- will say "See, it wasn't so bad, or it would have been this bad even if we had proactively gone virtual, or at least it wasn't that bad in my school, and at least we didn't all have to go virtual!" ("Oh, and also if we had gone virtual, I know without a shadow of a doubt that would have meant 5 months of virtual-- look what we saved you from!")

It's just a version of what's happened throughout COVID. "Why did we close down anything/mask/do anything at all? COVID wasn't so bad. No one I knew died except like one 90-year-old. We should have just kept living our lives because it's the fault of half-assed mitigation efforts that I didn't really follow that everyone is so stressed out now, not the fault of a pandemic that's close to having killed a million Americans. Signed, a Callous and Privileged Person"

I'm not saying you are that person. I'm saying what will happen if this is allowed to ride out without shifting most schools to virtual for a couple of weeks is likely to be a VERSION OF what has already happened.

People who are affected more by mitigation than COVID will blame mitigation (which does have some real negative consequences!) for all of their ills, and believe that it didn't or wouldn't help in terms of COVID, which is "unstoppable," and hey, we survived, so it was all a big farce and nanny nanny boo boo. Meanwhile, death and disability, past and future, are so much statistical noise.


*Very little of our personal opinions could have influenced this much, one way or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

This is true.

And the ReOpen group would be wise to stop wasting time writing/calling/testifying with the local admins and Board; they just don't care. And instead, spend all that time advocating at the state level. The only way MCPS will react is if somebody higher on the food chain tells them to. They just don't listen to families (regardless of your stance on in-person/virtual; if you are just a parent, they do not care)

DP and no, it's not true. It's such a moronic, one-sided take on the issue. It's like you're stuck in 2020. We have vaccines now, most people in MoCo who are eligible got them, Omicron is less severe, etc.

AND now we know what a disaster DL truly was, even though people like you can't admit you were wrong to insist on it for so long. I mean, what reputable scientific/medical expert agrees that DL is needed now?

Relax. I'm a part of the ReOpen group and want to avoid virtual at all costs.

My point was that all the testimony at the BOE meetings and emails to the Board has done and will continue to do absolutely nothing. That strategy should be abandoned.

MCPS only changes when they are forced to by the state. So all advocacy should be directed towards the the state

Anonymous wrote:PP. And we have seen this "we didn't like the data so let's get rid of the data instead of fixing the problem" before. It's MCPS's standard MO and it is what is dragging the system down. Grade inflation? No more county finals? All the same mentality.

Agree with the sentiment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so happy to see this update! Upgrade your masks everyone and go to school!

Only complete idiots think this is good news. Enjoy your kid’s subpar education for the remainder of the year, stuffed into auditoriums with no teachers. But they are socializing! (If you actually talked to your kid, you’d know the kids are absolutely miserable in the buildings right now)

Actually, I have talked to my kids about it. They absolutely want to be in school.

Same. my elem kid had different subs on Weds and Thurs. Teacher is out for maternity leave and the long term sub has cancelled for whatever reason.
Kid still wants to go. She is happy. She also did learn a few new things.

PP. And we have seen this "we didn't like the data so let's get rid of the data instead of fixing the problem" before. It's MCPS's standard MO and it is what is dragging the system down. Grade inflation? No more county finals? All the same mentality.

The gaslighting of teachers by central office is really something. "We love you all so much! Thank you! We care about your safety as our top priority! Here's how we're going to make your jobs even more chaotic and unmanageable and hateful! Love ya!" Empty words.

I think schools should remain open; for vaccinated people, omicron has become a cold that most people would still go out with anyway and it's the required quarantine that is the most disruptive and actually disincentivizes getting tested. But the utter lack of a plan, the constant changing and backtracking, and the delegating of more and more important tasks to the lowest people on the food chain who are already on the verge of a breakdown, is so demoralizing and infuriating. I can only imagine how many people are going to quit at the end of this year. Special ed in particular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's a real translation.

"We were afraid of the very vocal absolutely-no-virtual parents, because they are disproportionately well-off and powerful and know how to get attention. Even though the data suggested we were in for a sh!tshow and it might be best to go virtual for a few weeks to ride off the omicron sugre, we tried to create a school-by-school metric that might at least exclude at least THOSE people's schools from having to go virtual.

Since wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated people have lower rates of actual infection and spread of COVID, we thought, hey, we're geniuses. Whoever made/insisted upon this plan didn't consider that purely self-reported data was going to have the opposite effect, because the same people who are wealthier, whiter and more-vaccinated are also the ones more likely to speak fluent English, have time to be highly informed, understand the procedures and have or find access to tests. Thus though the spread may be the same or lower in, say, the Whitman cluster than the Wheaton or Blair clusters, the way this whole mess was designed, the Whitman people were more likely to have their schools shut down.

So we are uhhhhh not just asking everyone to go virtual for a week or three, like we should have in the first place, but making these decisions, based on highly inaccurate data, even more granular and more needlessly complicated. Because there will be hell to pay if Larla with the "red" Burning Tree kid has to go virtual under almost any circumstances-- and we don't really GAF about Larlette with the "green" New Hampshire Estates kids, who is confused and scared and kept her kids out of school last spring because she lives with her grandparents and she can't afford to get sick."

HTH

Look, I get why you think that. But if that were true, my kid would have gotten more than 20 days in school last year. It's simply not true.

The only thing that has ever caused them to change course, or expedite anything, has been pressure from the state.

Hogan had to pressure them to return last year.

And this switch came after the State called out their BS about following state guidelines.

And who do you think applies pressure on Hogan? White wealthy donors.

So only wealthy white people want their kids in school? Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's insane that once half of county schools went in the red zone MCPS stopped using that metric. Talk about rigging things to get the result you want! Now what am I supposed to do? By their own admission 60+ schools are unsafe. But I can't keep my kid out forever and can't afford private school (and don't want my kid to go to one even if I could). Why can't they go virtual TEMPORARILY, just until the Omicron wave passes. What are other concerned parents doing?

We're in one of the 11 schools that are already virtual. Apparently we're just supposed to wait on tenterhooks until "early next week" (as per our principal) for further updates. I'd rather they just have us finish out the 14 days, just so we know what to expect in the coming weeks. This game of "Will they, won't they" is exhausting.

Yeah that baffles me- what is so special about those 11 schools that they would be treated differently than those on the list a couple days later? It’s like MCPS didn’t want to give in on everything and arbitrarily picked a few things do double down on (also the continued 10 day quarantines)