Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is not hard. You act like it takes extra people. It wouldn’t. The admins are already in the schools. Just let ECE students and teachers show up and use the classroom. Simple.

My kids are older, but I appreciate how important in-person ECE is. It should happen.

Yes, it is. And your oversimplification and attempt to minimize the administrative and expense burdens just makes you look silly and uninformed. Putting the work "just" in front of a sentence doesn't make it any less burdensome.

I have said this in post after post after post; different people can come to different conclusions without operating in bad faith. And it is important to have discussions about pros and cons. But you necessarily make it easy to dismiss your opinion and feedback when you can't even acknowledge that none of this is easy and virtually every action has intended and unintended consequences that need to be carefully considered.

P.S. We are EOTP and our admin staff is WFH.

P.P.S. In-person is important. But much of the US doesn't even do PK3 or even PK4 and they manage to educate their kids (in many cases with more favorable outcomes than DC). So please stop acting like missing out on PK3 or PK4 is the end of the world for your poor snowflake.

My snowflakes are older. We are well past ECE.

If you knew anything about education, you would know that studies and trials have shown the great impact that ECE can have, specifically for disadvantaged learners. Wait until kindergarten and it’s too late to make up for missed opportunities in hearing broad vocabulary and other pre-reading and pre-math skills.

That’s why DC, and places all around the country like Tennessee and Arkansas, have added public ECE: to not have the dismal outcomes of the past.

I think you know as little about the field of operations as you do about education. Or else you work for DCPS and excuse-making is in your bones.

Anonymous wrote:
This is not hard. You act like it takes extra people. It wouldn’t. The admins are already in the schools. Just let ECE students and teachers show up and use the classroom. Simple.

My kids are older, but I appreciate how important in-person ECE is. It should happen.

Yes, it is. And your oversimplification and attempt to minimize the administrative and expense burdens just makes you look silly and uninformed. Putting the work "just" in front of a sentence doesn't make it any less burdensome.

I have said this in post after post after post; different people can come to different conclusions without operating in bad faith. And it is important to have discussions about pros and cons. But you necessarily make it easy to dismiss your opinion and feedback when you can't even acknowledge that none of this is easy and virtually every action has intended and unintended consequences that need to be carefully considered.

P.S. We are EOTP and our admin staff is WFH.

P.P.S. In-person is important. But much of the US doesn't even do PK3 or even PK4 and they manage to educate their kids (in many cases with more favorable outcomes than DC). So please stop acting like missing out on PK3 or PK4 is the end of the world for your poor snowflake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First day of PK was an unmitigated disaster for my kid this morning. She is getting absolutely nothing out of this. DL is a joke for this age group. Why won’t our worthless mayor close bars so we can open schools for small children?

Honestly, they don’t need to. DC more than meets public health criteria to have elementary schools open and PK is the same age cohort as day cares and they are open. It’s unbelievably ridiculous that PK is distance learning. It absolutely not supported by any science or data that it is necessary.

I honestly don’t want to ever hear DC harp on about their goals to close the achievement gap ever again. They lost absolutely all credibility here for the rest of forever.

Would you like some tarter sauce for your red herring? No one is arguing PK is best or preferable in DL model. And no one is arguing that achievement gaps are helped by DL. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether those challenges outweigh the risks of COVID spread. Since you are such a data lover I assume you realize that the majority of public school kids are 10 or older (a population that spreads the disease at the same rate as adults), so the decision matrix here isn't grade by grade, it is a system-wide decision with shared and finite resources.

P.S. You don't give two sh*ts about the achievement gap. That part of your post is just silly.

DP: Why shouldn’t the decision be made grade by grade? Seems quite reasonable to me to make decisions about elementary schools separate from middle and high schools,

Because you can't staff and scale resources necessary to support in-person and DL grade by grade.

This is such BS, I don’t buy it at all.

They should have prioritized in-person learning for small children, special needs, and children of essential workers right from the start. But instead we decided to open indoor dining and bars. I’m just so exhausted and angry. My older one is doing okay with DL, but my 4yo is crying every day because she hates virtual school and misses her friends. I have her on the waitlist for a couple of private preschools where I’m comfortable with the safety measures. DCPS has totally failed her. I guess I’m a sucker for expecting anything else

Parents of ECE are precious. We should totally upend all other schools and grades in favor of PK3 and PK4.

DP but I think the pp may have meant in-person learning should be prioritized for small children because SEL is more critical than content at that age and they simply don't learn well remotely. My MS child has been learning a lot remotely and doing well on exams. My K child didn't learn much and even regressed in some areas, and my PreK child didn't learn a damn thing in the Spring except for what I taught on our own (not even counting her frequent refusal to even engage online). I read the pp's comment as focusing on which ages in-person vs. remote learning has a bigger gap, not as which grades are the most important. YMMV.

What you and others are suggesting is running parallel school systems; one for ECE one for everyone else. So they should staff schools for ECE (along with special services, admin, etc.) and do DL for everyone else. Setting aside that the proposed solution doesn't match with DC's approach to public health (nor MD's or VA's), that's wholly impractical and cost prohibitive. It also ignores the reality that families may have kids in both ECE and upper ES and the drop-off/supervision challenges would create problems unto themselves. So I stand behind my snarky response that ECE families are precious, in that they can only see the world and education through the eyes of 3-5 year old parenting.

DL for ECE sucks. A lot. No one is arguing that fact (at least I am not). What I am arguing is that given where we are (without regard to how we got here - China conspiracy theories, too much consideration for community spread, etc.) there are hard decisions that need to be made, and they need to be made across an entire school system. So when people express their needs and desires for their kids in their demos that makes sense, but they also need to at least try and understand the world outside their needs and experiences to understand why decision-makers came to conclusions they did. I am not asking people to agree that the right decision was made, but I am arguing that if you can't at least acknowledge that there are considerations beyond your own immediate needs and wants, and further that any decision that doesn't maximize your utility is made in bad faith, then decision-makers may and should disregard or minimize your contribution to the discussion.

This is not hard. You act like it takes extra people. It wouldn’t. The admins are already in the schools. Just let ECE students and teachers show up and use the classroom. Simple.

My kids are older, but I appreciate how important in-person ECE is. It should happen.

NP. WOTP teacher and admin at my school are at home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First day of PK was an unmitigated disaster for my kid this morning. She is getting absolutely nothing out of this. DL is a joke for this age group. Why won’t our worthless mayor close bars so we can open schools for small children?

Honestly, they don’t need to. DC more than meets public health criteria to have elementary schools open and PK is the same age cohort as day cares and they are open. It’s unbelievably ridiculous that PK is distance learning. It absolutely not supported by any science or data that it is necessary.

I honestly don’t want to ever hear DC harp on about their goals to close the achievement gap ever again. They lost absolutely all credibility here for the rest of forever.

Would you like some tarter sauce for your red herring? No one is arguing PK is best or preferable in DL model. And no one is arguing that achievement gaps are helped by DL. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether those challenges outweigh the risks of COVID spread. Since you are such a data lover I assume you realize that the majority of public school kids are 10 or older (a population that spreads the disease at the same rate as adults), so the decision matrix here isn't grade by grade, it is a system-wide decision with shared and finite resources.

P.S. You don't give two sh*ts about the achievement gap. That part of your post is just silly.

DP: Why shouldn’t the decision be made grade by grade? Seems quite reasonable to me to make decisions about elementary schools separate from middle and high schools,

Because you can't staff and scale resources necessary to support in-person and DL grade by grade.

This is such BS, I don’t buy it at all.

They should have prioritized in-person learning for small children, special needs, and children of essential workers right from the start. But instead we decided to open indoor dining and bars. I’m just so exhausted and angry. My older one is doing okay with DL, but my 4yo is crying every day because she hates virtual school and misses her friends. I have her on the waitlist for a couple of private preschools where I’m comfortable with the safety measures. DCPS has totally failed her. I guess I’m a sucker for expecting anything else

Parents of ECE are precious. We should totally upend all other schools and grades in favor of PK3 and PK4.

DP but I think the pp may have meant in-person learning should be prioritized for small children because SEL is more critical than content at that age and they simply don't learn well remotely. My MS child has been learning a lot remotely and doing well on exams. My K child didn't learn much and even regressed in some areas, and my PreK child didn't learn a damn thing in the Spring except for what I taught on our own (not even counting her frequent refusal to even engage online). I read the pp's comment as focusing on which ages in-person vs. remote learning has a bigger gap, not as which grades are the most important. YMMV.

What you and others are suggesting is running parallel school systems; one for ECE one for everyone else. So they should staff schools for ECE (along with special services, admin, etc.) and do DL for everyone else. Setting aside that the proposed solution doesn't match with DC's approach to public health (nor MD's or VA's), that's wholly impractical and cost prohibitive. It also ignores the reality that families may have kids in both ECE and upper ES and the drop-off/supervision challenges would create problems unto themselves. So I stand behind my snarky response that ECE families are precious, in that they can only see the world and education through the eyes of 3-5 year old parenting.

DL for ECE sucks. A lot. No one is arguing that fact (at least I am not). What I am arguing is that given where we are (without regard to how we got here - China conspiracy theories, too much consideration for community spread, etc.) there are hard decisions that need to be made, and they need to be made across an entire school system. So when people express their needs and desires for their kids in their demos that makes sense, but they also need to at least try and understand the world outside their needs and experiences to understand why decision-makers came to conclusions they did. I am not asking people to agree that the right decision was made, but I am arguing that if you can't at least acknowledge that there are considerations beyond your own immediate needs and wants, and further that any decision that doesn't maximize your utility is made in bad faith, then decision-makers may and should disregard or minimize your contribution to the discussion.

This is not hard. You act like it takes extra people. It wouldn’t. The admins are already in the schools. Just let ECE students and teachers show up and use the classroom. Simple.

My kids are older, but I appreciate how important in-person ECE is. It should happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First day of PK was an unmitigated disaster for my kid this morning. She is getting absolutely nothing out of this. DL is a joke for this age group. Why won’t our worthless mayor close bars so we can open schools for small children?

Honestly, they don’t need to. DC more than meets public health criteria to have elementary schools open and PK is the same age cohort as day cares and they are open. It’s unbelievably ridiculous that PK is distance learning. It absolutely not supported by any science or data that it is necessary.

I honestly don’t want to ever hear DC harp on about their goals to close the achievement gap ever again. They lost absolutely all credibility here for the rest of forever.

Would you like some tarter sauce for your red herring? No one is arguing PK is best or preferable in DL model. And no one is arguing that achievement gaps are helped by DL. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether those challenges outweigh the risks of COVID spread. Since you are such a data lover I assume you realize that the majority of public school kids are 10 or older (a population that spreads the disease at the same rate as adults), so the decision matrix here isn't grade by grade, it is a system-wide decision with shared and finite resources.

P.S. You don't give two sh*ts about the achievement gap. That part of your post is just silly.

DP: Why shouldn’t the decision be made grade by grade? Seems quite reasonable to me to make decisions about elementary schools separate from middle and high schools,

Because you can't staff and scale resources necessary to support in-person and DL grade by grade.

This is such BS, I don’t buy it at all.

They should have prioritized in-person learning for small children, special needs, and children of essential workers right from the start. But instead we decided to open indoor dining and bars. I’m just so exhausted and angry. My older one is doing okay with DL, but my 4yo is crying every day because she hates virtual school and misses her friends. I have her on the waitlist for a couple of private preschools where I’m comfortable with the safety measures. DCPS has totally failed her. I guess I’m a sucker for expecting anything else

Parents of ECE are precious. We should totally upend all other schools and grades in favor of PK3 and PK4.

DP but I think the pp may have meant in-person learning should be prioritized for small children because SEL is more critical than content at that age and they simply don't learn well remotely. My MS child has been learning a lot remotely and doing well on exams. My K child didn't learn much and even regressed in some areas, and my PreK child didn't learn a damn thing in the Spring except for what I taught on our own (not even counting her frequent refusal to even engage online). I read the pp's comment as focusing on which ages in-person vs. remote learning has a bigger gap, not as which grades are the most important. YMMV.

What you and others are suggesting is running parallel school systems; one for ECE one for everyone else. So they should staff schools for ECE (along with special services, admin, etc.) and do DL for everyone else. Setting aside that the proposed solution doesn't match with DC's approach to public health (nor MD's or VA's), that's wholly impractical and cost prohibitive. It also ignores the reality that families may have kids in both ECE and upper ES and the drop-off/supervision challenges would create problems unto themselves. So I stand behind my snarky response that ECE families are precious, in that they can only see the world and education through the eyes of 3-5 year old parenting.

DL for ECE sucks. A lot. No one is arguing that fact (at least I am not). What I am arguing is that given where we are (without regard to how we got here - China conspiracy theories, too much consideration for community spread, etc.) there are hard decisions that need to be made, and they need to be made across an entire school system. So when people express their needs and desires for their kids in their demos that makes sense, but they also need to at least try and understand the world outside their needs and experiences to understand why decision-makers came to conclusions they did. I am not asking people to agree that the right decision was made, but I am arguing that if you can't at least acknowledge that there are considerations beyond your own immediate needs and wants, and further that any decision that doesn't maximize your utility is made in bad faith, then decision-makers may and should disregard or minimize your contribution to the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

Your previous post said the goal was to not lose kids. So losing one type of kid is a ‘legitimate’ concern; losing my kids — or kids of other DCUMers — apparently is not factor worthy of consideration.

In any event, my child, and surely quite a few others, loves in-person school and excels at it. He is not flawed if DL is a problem, because DL is not age-appropriate for elementary. But we’re stuck with it, so the goal should be able to make it work as well as possible for all kids.

One thing that should have happened: there should have been IT training for just those who need it, pissibly delivered by someone (or some software) other than classroom teachers.

I hope you are a troll and not really this self-involved. Or lack even basic levels of reading comprehension. Let's dig deeper into your reply.

"Your previous post said the goal was to not lose kids. So losing one type of kid is a ‘legitimate’ concern; losing my kids — or kids of other DCUMers — apparently is not factor worthy of consideration." I didn't say the goal was not to lose kids. I said the goal was to minimize the aggregate impact of DL by weighing starting slow and building a technology baseline (i.e. boring some kids for couple of weeks) against the impact of having kids who don't understand the technology being lost for an entire year because they lack the proper foundation. And I didn't say one kid or PP's kid "wasn't worthy of consideration". What I said was that it wasn't all about their kid. See the difference? I am not arguing your kid won't be bored by two weeks of tech instruction. I am arguing that your kid's detriment isn't the only consideration. Can you honestly not see the difference? There's a victim complex pervasive on DCUM where somehow if someone isn't considering only your needs or wants then they are completely disregarding your concerns.

there should have been IT training for just those who need it - This is an acknowledgment that there is a technology gap that needs to be closed. And you seem to be arguing that it should have been closed by some other means. That's not an illogical argument on its face. It begs the question of who was going to provide the training, how were they to be paid, how could that have worked when DCPS didn't bother to distribute the technology until right before school started, teachers didn't populate Teams and other resources until right before school, or in some cases after school began, etc. But at its core your comment makes clear that your position is that your family should not be inconvenienced by having to sit through tech training, even if (hypothetically) a majority of students would benefit from it. You have the right to be selfish. But if you want an education system that cares only about your needs or the needs of people with identical social and financial capabilities then you need to either home school or pony up for GDS or Sidwell.

"He is not flawed if DL is a problem" - I honestly don't know what this means. Let's be clear here; PP introduced their "ADD" kid, not me. And then they hid behind it. And the use of the word "flawed" is, I would argue, intentionally loaded. The irony here is you and your PP friend seem intent on leaning into your kid's special needs as a justification for why DCPS should behave (or not behave) in a certain way, but you cannot understand that the effort to close the technology gap is DCPS' way of trying to accommodate someone else's need; technology gaps and lack of in-home resources to solve them. I'm sitting here trying to figure out why that is. All I can come up with is that at your core you believe that your kid's ADD or LD isn't your "fault" or the kid's "fault", but that the poverty or lack of technology or in-home support that caused DCPS to spend two weeks closing the technology is somehow that kid's "fault". I guess they should have made better choices and been born into more affluent or educated families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

\

I have a close friend with a severely mentally ill child in a residential treatment center. Using them to insult the pp is INCREDIBLY offensive. You need to make better choices.

And your friend found help appropriate to the issues facing the child; good for her. The PP to whom I replied should act similarly. If it is true that her child's issues would cause the child to permanently disengage from school because of two weeks of boredom then the child is facing some very, very serious issues. I'm not clear on how your sensitivity on behalf of your friend's child (and I bet she'd love to know how very condescending you are in reference to her child and situation) then why aren't you seriously offended by posters who hide behind ADD and other legitimate challenges and engage in hyperbole to score cheap points? I didn't minimize legitimate ADD and other LD, PP did. Perhaps some better choices for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10th grade Walls. Going fine. Teachers not adept at Microsoft teams yet. Think Zoom worked better (and allowed small group meetings).

To be fair it’s hard to know Teams well without practicing with actual groups of people in meetings. And Teams just sucks for classes, and DCPs keeps changing the settings without alerting teachers. You can do group meetings on Teams, it’s just a pain to set up.

All that is to say, Zoom is infinitely better for virtual classes.

I’m a teacher and got a notice today that the IT changes the settings so kids are only attendees. Now people not familiar with Teams only have to set the meeting or press the “meet now” button. I’m glad I used teams in the spring. Teams does have an update now to allow for breakout room which should help. In regard to differentiation, we will make our small groups. I teach ES. We will start content in a week.

The breakout room feature should help once it’s actually up and running. Right now I have the feature but there are lots of bugs to be worked out. I won’t be using it until it is officially unveiled in October.

My version of Teams already has breakout rooms but we aren’t supposed to use them unless we have an adult to supervise each group.

Honest question, have you tested out the break out rooms? My Teams has the feature too. But I spent a good deal of my planning time testing out the feature with some colleagues and there were major issues- the sound didn’t work in the breakout rooms, some people were never sent to the rooms, multiple people couldn’t get in to the same room, etc. It’s there but it doesn’t work effectively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

\

I have a close friend with a severely mentally ill child in a residential treatment center. Using them to insult the pp is INCREDIBLY offensive. You need to make better choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

Your previous post said the goal was to not lose kids. So losing one type of kid is a ‘legitimate’ concern; losing my kids — or kids of other DCUMers — apparently is not factor worthy of consideration.

In any event, my child, and surely quite a few others, loves in-person school and excels at it. He is not flawed if DL is a problem, because DL is not age-appropriate for elementary. But we’re stuck with it, so the goal should be able to make it work as well as possible for all kids.

One thing that should have happened: there should have been IT training for just those who need it, pissibly delivered by someone (or some software) other than classroom teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First day of PK was an unmitigated disaster for my kid this morning. She is getting absolutely nothing out of this. DL is a joke for this age group. Why won’t our worthless mayor close bars so we can open schools for small children?

Honestly, they don’t need to. DC more than meets public health criteria to have elementary schools open and PK is the same age cohort as day cares and they are open. It’s unbelievably ridiculous that PK is distance learning. It absolutely not supported by any science or data that it is necessary.

I honestly don’t want to ever hear DC harp on about their goals to close the achievement gap ever again. They lost absolutely all credibility here for the rest of forever.

Would you like some tarter sauce for your red herring? No one is arguing PK is best or preferable in DL model. And no one is arguing that achievement gaps are helped by DL. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether those challenges outweigh the risks of COVID spread. Since you are such a data lover I assume you realize that the majority of public school kids are 10 or older (a population that spreads the disease at the same rate as adults), so the decision matrix here isn't grade by grade, it is a system-wide decision with shared and finite resources.

P.S. You don't give two sh*ts about the achievement gap. That part of your post is just silly.

DP: Why shouldn’t the decision be made grade by grade? Seems quite reasonable to me to make decisions about elementary schools separate from middle and high schools,

Because you can't staff and scale resources necessary to support in-person and DL grade by grade.

This is such BS, I don’t buy it at all.

They should have prioritized in-person learning for small children, special needs, and children of essential workers right from the start. But instead we decided to open indoor dining and bars. I’m just so exhausted and angry. My older one is doing okay with DL, but my 4yo is crying every day because she hates virtual school and misses her friends. I have her on the waitlist for a couple of private preschools where I’m comfortable with the safety measures. DCPS has totally failed her. I guess I’m a sucker for expecting anything else

Parents of ECE are precious. We should totally upend all other schools and grades in favor of PK3 and PK4.

DP but I think the pp may have meant in-person learning should be prioritized for small children because SEL is more critical than content at that age and they simply don't learn well remotely. My MS child has been learning a lot remotely and doing well on exams. My K child didn't learn much and even regressed in some areas, and my PreK child didn't learn a damn thing in the Spring except for what I taught on our own (not even counting her frequent refusal to even engage online). I read the pp's comment as focusing on which ages in-person vs. remote learning has a bigger gap, not as which grades are the most important. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

Your previous post suggested the idea idea that this was a deliberate strategy. Now you're running with it as being the case but I think the premise is flawed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your school and the other CH school are flagrantly violating DCPS policy. Your school, by not following this policy is probably also violating FERPA since your leadership gets to make up polices at will.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Privacy, especially if zoom calls are being recorded. There is a list of guidance from DCPS and if the principal is ignoring that it is likely federal laws are not being followed closely either. You should at least look into if if you don't know what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?

Boring lectures that cause kids to tune out is a risk for all students (so let's set aside the ADD red herring for a moment). And there is clearly a cost to you and your kid if that happens. But here's the thing, and I understand this is a concept you don't seem to grasp, this isn't entirely about you and your kid! The idea here is how to maximize the outcomes for an entire class/school/system. So the consideration is the detriment to starting slow and concentrating on technology fundamentals for a week or two vs not taking that approach. Let me say that again, this isn't all about YOU!

I'd also say to you that if your kid permanently quits because he just can't reengage after a week or two because the first week or two is "too boring" then you may want to reassess whether DCPS is the right environment for your family. Maybe residential or specialized school? I'm not being mean, I'm being serious. If that's the outcome of a week or two of "boring" material then there's a clear need for professional intervention. I hope and pray you find a place to get the support you need.

Anonymous wrote:An observation about this thread and others on DCUM. It is really interesting to watch parents both complain about wasted time in the early week(s) and also about how poor the technology deployment and teacher performance is in the early week(s). Similarly, it is interesting to watch parents complain about how much technological intervention is required on their part at the same time they complain that everything in week one was way behind grade level and too focused on technology.

Is it possible that the abundance of caution that has schools doing technology intros is intended to close the technology knowledge gap so that all kids are on an even footing once rigorous work begins in week 2 or 3? And further that by trying to create a baseline of technology skills and knowledge, the goal is to minimize wasted time and resources spent by teachers in helping kids log in, find work, use available technology in Week 3 and beyond? Is it possible that some of the teachers may be new to this and/or uncomfortable with the technology and they themselves have a steep learning curve?

Maybe it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe one week is enough but two is too many? Maybe your kid is comfortable but 50% of the class isn't so these early weeks are important to their learning and ability to remain engaged going forward. Maybe it is all a waste and your kid will be shortchanged two whole weeks of school. Maybe your kid's teacher is fluent in Teams and spent time and energy to get comfortable and maximize their teaching methods more so than entrenched tenured WTU dinosaurs who couldn't be bothered to lift a finger until the day and hour that the contract started.

But can you get outside yourself and your experience for just a moment to consider the experience or background of others such that maybe, just maybe, there are benefits to others that you won't realize, and the aggregate cost to your "wasted" two weeks is significantly less than the cost of losing kids who just quit (emotionally, academically, or actually physically quitting) because the hurdle of on-line learning is too much to overcome without someone giving them the tools that your kids already possess, or because their teacher needed a week or two to figure out how to make this all useful?

So if my kid “just quits” because his bright, ADD self can’t stand super-boring online sessions, then that doesn’t have a cost?