Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at least some people have heard from Brent, SWS, Van Ness, Janney, Lafayette, Hearst, Mitch, Shepherd per this and other threads. Any others?

Have any schools had exceptions that have been made? Sounds like some schools have been able to skip having in person in some grades??

Anonymous wrote:So at least some people have heard from Brent, SWS, Van Ness, Janney, Lafayette, Hearst, Mitch, Shepherd per this and other threads. Any others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

I was thinking that too. More manageable for the teacher and for learning.

Anonymous wrote:Look, dcps could have done a priority list based simply on the number of hours of help required and it would have stood up to a lawsuit. However, I think they very much didn’t want to have classes with the 11 kids with the most severe needs in a class. I think they know that such a class would be very tough to teach for one teacher, since the supports are still virtual. Using a lottery, they are able to keep the overall class needs down and more manageable for the teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the kids with high needs IEPs who got a spot are not going back into a classroom with pullouts for speech and o/t and special education - they are going into a classroom with 10 (or 9 if they are lower grade) other kids with various needs that will all be met virtually. So it seems like the grade level teacher will be there to log the kids into computers in order to have their service hours virtually with SLP etc. Same with self-contained. And the rationale for half of the kids there is that those classes are mandated to have a teacher and TWO aides. So if the teacher or one of the aides isn’t coming back then you can’t have (up to 8) kids. Many of the kids in self-contained are not able to socially distance or potentially wear masks because of their sensory issues and that means those classes will be higher risk for everyone in the room. Again, if the people who made these plans had ever had an iota of actual experience in a classroom, they may have realized that there are other factors than the number of bodies you can fit into a classroom. But they haven’t, and they chose not to involve the people who know the kids best, parents and teachers, and so here we are...

My IEP kid gets about an hour a day of pull-out instruction. I'm fine with his remaining virtual if his math and ELA instruction is in person. It is an great plan for him. I understand it is not great for everyone and I'd prefer a plan that gave more students access to in-person instruction. But it is literally winning the lottery for us.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

In the absence of medical or research based categorization (with clear, documented benchmarks) assigned to each child this could not and should not have been discretionary (vs lottery). To have done so would have opened schools up to pressure from activist parents, a requirement to do discrimination testing on the final results (which would have delayed implementation) and lawsuits. That's the reality. I will defend almost nothing DCPS has done, but doing this as a lottery with broad categories was the right move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.

I actually think homeless kids get priority over other groups.

I thought the same thing because they were listed as Category 1, but our principal said all categories are lumped. Maybe to protect identities..so it's not obvious to everyone else who is homeless? Don't know, but ya.... transparency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the kids with high needs IEPs who got a spot are not going back into a classroom with pullouts for speech and o/t and special education - they are going into a classroom with 10 (or 9 if they are lower grade) other kids with various needs that will all be met virtually. So it seems like the grade level teacher will be there to log the kids into computers in order to have their service hours virtually with SLP etc. Same with self-contained. And the rationale for half of the kids there is that those classes are mandated to have a teacher and TWO aides. So if the teacher or one of the aides isn’t coming back then you can’t have (up to 8) kids. Many of the kids in self-contained are not able to socially distance or potentially wear masks because of their sensory issues and that means those classes will be higher risk for everyone in the room. Again, if the people who made these plans had ever had an iota of actual experience in a classroom, they may have realized that there are other factors than the number of bodies you can fit into a classroom. But they haven’t, and they chose not to involve the people who know the kids best, parents and teachers, and so here we are...

My IEP kid gets about an hour a day of pull-out instruction. I'm fine with his remaining virtual if his math and ELA instruction is in person. It is an great plan for him. I understand it is not great for everyone and I'd prefer a plan that gave more students access to in-person instruction. But it is literally winning the lottery for us.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

In the absence of medical or research based categorization (with clear, documented benchmarks) assigned to each child this could not and should not have been discretionary (vs lottery). To have done so would have opened schools up to pressure from activist parents, a requirement to do discrimination testing on the final results (which would have delayed implementation) and lawsuits. That's the reality. I will defend almost nothing DCPS has done, but doing this as a lottery with broad categories was the right move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.

I actually think homeless kids get priority over other groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the kids with high needs IEPs who got a spot are not going back into a classroom with pullouts for speech and o/t and special education - they are going into a classroom with 10 (or 9 if they are lower grade) other kids with various needs that will all be met virtually. So it seems like the grade level teacher will be there to log the kids into computers in order to have their service hours virtually with SLP etc. Same with self-contained. And the rationale for half of the kids there is that those classes are mandated to have a teacher and TWO aides. So if the teacher or one of the aides isn’t coming back then you can’t have (up to 8) kids. Many of the kids in self-contained are not able to socially distance or potentially wear masks because of their sensory issues and that means those classes will be higher risk for everyone in the room. Again, if the people who made these plans had ever had an iota of actual experience in a classroom, they may have realized that there are other factors than the number of bodies you can fit into a classroom. But they haven’t, and they chose not to involve the people who know the kids best, parents and teachers, and so here we are...

My IEP kid gets about an hour a day of pull-out instruction. I'm fine with his remaining virtual if his math and ELA instruction is in person. It is an great plan for him. I understand it is not great for everyone and I'd prefer a plan that gave more students access to in-person instruction. But it is literally winning the lottery for us.

PP here: Right, but a lot of people here are complaining that their kids with lots of specialized instruction and therapy on their IEPs and one-to-one aides and so on didn’t get spots when other kids like yours did - I’m pointing out that the specialized instruction and therapies will STILL BE ONLINE for those kids and that therefore the placement might not solve the issues that they are describing. If they were truly planning to go by “neediest” they would have worked with SPED coordinators to make sure those kids who had the most hours in their IEPs (outside self-contained) were prioritized. And if DCPS really cared about those kids, they would have made sure they had enough staffing for SLPs and O/Ts so they at least didn’t have to work in different school buildings and add to the possibility of cross-contamination in different schools. They’d still be going between different classes at school potentially so not sure how that works (and the same with ELL, of course!)

And the truth is also that in many schools that DCUM posters mostly don’t attend, these classes will be full-up with homeless kids and at-risk ELL kids (sometimes overlapping). For all people here like to complain about the embassy kids taking up those spaces, most of the ELL classrooms across the city are not filled with the children of Scandinavian diplomats!

Anonymous wrote:My UMC ELL has benefitted a lot from services in our DCPS for the past several years. We got an in-person spot and wouldn't take it if we were convinced that a less needy student could get it off the WL. We're not convinced, not the way things are shaking out. Kids with minor IEPs have the same preference as families on welfare and in homeless shelters. Ugh.