Anonymous wrote:This tweet says 92 families have been referred to CFS for “educational neglect.” https://twitter.com/perrystein/status/1446499699557429258?s=21

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

+1 the DCUM echo chamber isn’t real (and frankly is probably filled with folks who don’t even live in the district.

I know it's hard to come to grips with the fact that you created legal child abuse. But you did, Jan. It's real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

+1 the DCUM echo chamber isn’t real (and frankly is probably filled with folks who don’t even live in the district.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you writing the council need to know that they're acting how they're acting because they have heard from so many MORE of us whose children are in unsafe schools, taking inadequate COVID precautions, and using the threat of CPS to coerce silence families who are frightened to send their children. I'm truly repulsed by those of you who are shouting "privilege" at us even as you send your kids off to your very safe charter or safe public. Its not even in this city, it's not even close, and you need to check YOUR privilege. POC are carrying the brunt of this illness and white people should stop trying to talk for them and stop trying to suggest that a family who is keeping their child home in fear is somehow not equipped to make that decision, and need YOU to make the decision for them. That's a terrible thing to do to people who can and are speaking for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

How come when you write the council and ask them to change things and their response is “it will be fine” that’s an issue, but the 1500+ people who petitioned for a virtual option are crazy lunatics who hate children

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

this quote doesn't establish a rubric or even provide grounds through which the school could say no.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

Damn. Well then the Council sucks even worse than I thought, and this really is legalized child abuse.

Yes. I honestly think this was half-baked legislation. The hastily-written and unproofread amendment indicates that they really didn't think this through. It is not too late for the Council to create a new amendment to fix this glaring issue. Frankly, I am fine with the rest of the legislation. I don't think it's GOOD legislation, but not too harmful otherwise. This issue however needs to be fixed. Perhaps they intended for schools to be able to pick and choose among parents, but unfortunately the letter of the law doesn't indicate that.

I wrote to my council member about this portion of the bill, and noted my concerns about neglect and child abuse. Her office basically said, "it'll be fine."

Man I hate the Council.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

this quote doesn't establish a rubric or even provide grounds through which the school could say no.

If the linked document is actually the legislation, it's totally incoherent and standardless. Doesn't the council have any legislative drafters?

Have you read the amendment? It's even worse (see the reference to "COVID-10"). The justification included with the new paragraph suggests that DCPS wasn't consulted until after the original legislation was drafted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

this quote doesn't establish a rubric or even provide grounds through which the school could say no.

If the linked document is actually the legislation, it's totally incoherent and standardless. Doesn't the council have any legislative drafters?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

this quote doesn't establish a rubric or even provide grounds through which the school could say no.

If the linked document is actually the legislation, it's totally incoherent and standardless. Doesn't the council have any legislative drafters?