Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable you think schools will open in the Fall.

Yup. This.

Its happening. There simply isnt another option. Sorry you might have to go back to work.

There is zero way that schools will go back.
There is no way to separate the kids or keep the teachers safe.
I have no connection to schools and I'm certainly not a teacher.

Summer camps are all being canceled--we had 5 cancel their entire summers this week.
Schools are making plans to teach online in the fall.

VA is starting to reopen next week. September is 4 months away--you really dont think that's enough time? You realize the proper functioning of our economy requires schools be open, right? They will be open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable you think schools will open in the Fall.

Yup. This.

Its happening. There simply isnt another option. Sorry you might have to go back to work.

There is zero way that schools will go back.
There is no way to separate the kids or keep the teachers safe.
I have no connection to schools and I'm certainly not a teacher.

Summer camps are all being canceled--we had 5 cancel their entire summers this week.
Schools are making plans to teach online in the fall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable you think schools will open in the Fall.

Yup. This.

Its happening. There simply isnt another option. Sorry you might have to go back to work.

I think shifts and alternate days make the most sense. Redistricting needs to happen in general, but it's not going to allow for 10-15 kids/class.

Perhaps the speech therapists, OTs, and others who usually do pull-outs will make home visits and do those on the days or times kids aren't in school.

It will be a disaster for any family without a parent who is very organized and has a flexible work schedule. What is the school going to do when little Johnny who is scheduled to come on A days shows up on a B day--put him in an Uber back to his empty house?

Hopefully the District will set up something like the NYC "enrichment centers" to provide care for the school-aged kids of parents who have to work.

I think some kids won't show up at all. OSSE should be working with the LEAs to identify the kids nobody's been in touch with and have CFSA investigate. Sadly, some of the kids will be missing or dead.

They are looking at lots of different possibilities including having students attend in shifts and on different days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. You should be embarrassed. You would never say that in real life and can only say this on an anonymous forum. People like you disgust me.

I wouldn’t, because it would upset people obviously as evidenced by your response. But the truth is if only 4 kids can get science instruction in person and 20 kids need it, which 4 should be chosen? The kids with an aptitude for science or the kids with significant learning disabilities? Ask 100 people anonymously and see what the answer is/

All 20 should get distance learning. Aptitude for science or not, that doesn’t make one kid more deserving of instruction.

So even if there is ability to give 4 out of 20 in person learning, you maintain that NOBODY should get it? If everyone can’t? Even if by random lottery?

NP. Only serving 4 kids in person is a complete waste of resources and this discussion is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. You should be embarrassed. You would never say that in real life and can only say this on an anonymous forum. People like you disgust me.

I wouldn’t, because it would upset people obviously as evidenced by your response. But the truth is if only 4 kids can get science instruction in person and 20 kids need it, which 4 should be chosen? The kids with an aptitude for science or the kids with significant learning disabilities? Ask 100 people anonymously and see what the answer is/

All 20 should get distance learning. Aptitude for science or not, that doesn’t make one kid more deserving of instruction.

So even if there is ability to give 4 out of 20 in person learning, you maintain that NOBODY should get it? If everyone can’t? Even if by random lottery?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. You should be embarrassed. You would never say that in real life and can only say this on an anonymous forum. People like you disgust me.

I wouldn’t, because it would upset people obviously as evidenced by your response. But the truth is if only 4 kids can get science instruction in person and 20 kids need it, which 4 should be chosen? The kids with an aptitude for science or the kids with significant learning disabilities? Ask 100 people anonymously and see what the answer is/

All 20 should get distance learning. Aptitude for science or not, that doesn’t make one kid more deserving of instruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

NP. I'm a special education teacher. I understand that you weren't intentionally being cold and were only trying to make a point. Your reasoning is still off because it assumes that the majority of students receiving services have severe developmental delays. The majority of the kids on my caseload are honor roll students. Most of the kids I've worked with over the years don't present any differently than their typically developing peers. They may have issues with calculation, but are stellar writers (or vice versa). Those who receive specialized services like speech, auditory, or vision aren't necessarily mute, deaf, or blind either. There's a very broad spectrum when it comes to students with disabilities.

I'm not advocating for kids with IEPs going back first. I don't think one group takes preference over another.

That’s true, I was going off that assumption. I appreciate your perspective!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. You should be embarrassed. You would never say that in real life and can only say this on an anonymous forum. People like you disgust me.

I wouldn’t, because it would upset people obviously as evidenced by your response. But the truth is if only 4 kids can get science instruction in person and 20 kids need it, which 4 should be chosen? The kids with an aptitude for science or the kids with significant learning disabilities? Ask 100 people anonymously and see what the answer is/

I wonder if there is any chance that this will present an opportunity for a "emergency" redistricting in the fall. We are getting close to the time anyways and several of the schools were beyond crowded already. A "temporary" move could reduce some of the crowding and then maybe people would get used to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. You should be embarrassed. You would never say that in real life and can only say this on an anonymous forum. People like you disgust me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids receiving services should/will go back first.

Regular kids? Who the hell knows?

This type of reasoning bothers me. To put it in a stark way, the kids who are non verbal and unlikely to be largely productive members of society as adults will be able to attend school, but the future doctors/ nurses/ teachers/ etc will be made to sit out. How can a society function if this is our priority?

I know this sounds cold hearted. I’m thinking big picture on purpose with my musings. But what if hospitals functioned the same way- in Italy for example if 2 people needed a hospital bed and one was 85 and had heart disease and one was 30 and healthy, the 30 year old got it. It seems like with schools this plan would only offer in person education to the most frail.

NP. I'm a special education teacher. I understand that you weren't intentionally being cold and were only trying to make a point. Your reasoning is still off because it assumes that the majority of students receiving services have severe developmental delays. The majority of the kids on my caseload are honor roll students. Most of the kids I've worked with over the years don't present any differently than their typically developing peers. They may have issues with calculation, but are stellar writers (or vice versa). Those who receive specialized services like speech, auditory, or vision aren't necessarily mute, deaf, or blind either. There's a very broad spectrum when it comes to students with disabilities.

I'm not advocating for kids with IEPs going back first. I don't think one group takes preference over another.

It might be a good opportunity to open a "Deal Academy at Coolidge" or "Deal Academy at Brookland" or something. People might be open to it if they could keep their kids in their Deal bubble, more or less.

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable you think schools will open in the Fall.

Yup. This.