Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering how this will work. At my school, there are two cohorts with about 10 kids each. If the cohorts are combined to make a class of 20, and they go 4/5 days a week, then how will any new students be added to IPL? Does the principal make a choice of more days versus more students?

Will parents have any input?

I sure hope the parents whose kids are already in those small classes won't have any input on whether the classes can be expanded.

Anonymous wrote:Can you cite the new distancing guidance or the announcement? Thank you!!

NP, and I haven't seen any announcement, but I did just look at the OSSE documentation and it's in there! The 3 feet guidance, that is. Amazing news.

I'm wondering how this will work. At my school, there are two cohorts with about 10 kids each. If the cohorts are combined to make a class of 20, and they go 4/5 days a week, then how will any new students be added to IPL? Does the principal make a choice of more days versus more students?

Will parents have any input?

Can you cite the new distancing guidance or the announcement? Thank you!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school has said they are not expanding anymore. They took the route of having actual in person classes (no concurrent) and then bigger virtual classes. This is better overall instruction, but makes it logistically impossible to expand anymore - so I guess its a trade off. We were offered in person for Term 3 and I declined thinking we would have another chance for Term 4, but no. Anyway just really hoping for 5 days in the fall now.

Why does this model make it impossible to expand more if the distancing guidelines are reduced? Surely kids from the virtual class could just go to the in person class (teacher switches are permitted by DCPS as long as they're voluntary, at least as per our principal).

Has DCPS said they are reducing the distancing guidelines? If so then maybe they could get up to 50% back instead of 25%, but kids would have to switch teachers for possibly a 3rd time (maybe switching back to original teacher). Anyway they have not surveyed us and have said they are not expanding....

Yes, announced last night.

I don't completely understand the concern with switching teachers - if a student returns to a classroom - and the potential stress on the student. From our perspective, any potential stress far outweighs the stress of continued and often inadequate zoom instruction - inadequate because of the difficulty of teaching via zoom - and isolation.

I think it’s disingenuous to say that they are “meeting demand” in Term 4 if they offer more slots now. If we get offered a spot in April we will decline it, but only because when we did not get IPL in February (after getting our hopes up and dashed in the Fall), we finally made arrangements privately so that our kid can be with a peer group 3 days a week. And we’ve finally settled into that routine and our kid seems happy.

I would definitely rather just have my kid go to her school where she is enrolled and be with her actual teacher and classmates. But I won’t disrupt her schedule yet again so she can be in person for a couple months, only to then disrupt her schedule for summer. I know we are not the only family who has decided to let go of the hope of IPL this year in favor of some consistency for our kid, who has been jerked around repeatedly by DCPS.

“Meeting demand” can’t just mean offering families 6 weeks of IPL after a full year of broken promises and shifting deadlines.

Anonymous wrote:Our school has said they are not expanding anymore. They took the route of having actual in person classes (no concurrent) and then bigger virtual classes. This is better overall instruction, but makes it logistically impossible to expand anymore - so I guess its a trade off. We were offered in person for Term 3 and I declined thinking we would have another chance for Term 4, but no. Anyway just really hoping for 5 days in the fall now.

How can they not expand when the guidelines drop from 6 feet- to 3 feet.
My school used the exact same model and our principal was candid that she is showing upwards of 25 kids into each classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school has said they are not expanding anymore. They took the route of having actual in person classes (no concurrent) and then bigger virtual classes. This is better overall instruction, but makes it logistically impossible to expand anymore - so I guess its a trade off. We were offered in person for Term 3 and I declined thinking we would have another chance for Term 4, but no. Anyway just really hoping for 5 days in the fall now.

Why does this model make it impossible to expand more if the distancing guidelines are reduced? Surely kids from the virtual class could just go to the in person class (teacher switches are permitted by DCPS as long as they're voluntary, at least as per our principal).

Has DCPS said they are reducing the distancing guidelines? If so then maybe they could get up to 50% back instead of 25%, but kids would have to switch teachers for possibly a 3rd time (maybe switching back to original teacher). Anyway they have not surveyed us and have said they are not expanding....

Anonymous wrote:Our school has said they are not expanding anymore. They took the route of having actual in person classes (no concurrent) and then bigger virtual classes. This is better overall instruction, but makes it logistically impossible to expand anymore - so I guess its a trade off. We were offered in person for Term 3 and I declined thinking we would have another chance for Term 4, but no. Anyway just really hoping for 5 days in the fall now.

Why does this model make it impossible to expand more if the distancing guidelines are reduced? Surely kids from the virtual class could just go to the in person class (teacher switches are permitted by DCPS as long as they're voluntary, at least as per our principal).

I disagree about offering teachers transfer opportunities as way to incentive them to return. Current policy is that city officials and dcps staff don't receive preference in the lottery or to transfer. Former Chancellor Antwan Wilson was forced to resign in 2018 because he got his daughter transferred from Duke Ellington to Wilson, and bypassed the lottery waitlist. While it would be ideal for dcps to help their teachers figure out child care it opens a can of worms if the 4000+ DCPS teachers were allowed priority access. Juggling child care and virtual learning is not a unique challenge just to the teaching profession. We're all struggling with it. Maybe DCPS can opens CARE hubs for teachers children. Outside of the pandemic, the city needs to focus on making all their schools equally good and desirable. We need good teachers and good students at all schools across the city instead of everyone clamoring for limited spots in a handful of high-performing schools WOTP.

Our school has said they are not expanding anymore. They took the route of having actual in person classes (no concurrent) and then bigger virtual classes. This is better overall instruction, but makes it logistically impossible to expand anymore - so I guess its a trade off. We were offered in person for Term 3 and I declined thinking we would have another chance for Term 4, but no. Anyway just really hoping for 5 days in the fall now.

Anonymous wrote:How do people feel if teachers are offered IP spots for their children - even if it means transferring their child into the school - as a way to incentivize teachers to return? This would ultimately take an IP spot away from an existing student but it would also help open up more spots. TBD if the teacher's child would be allowed to bypass lottery/in-bound and keep the spot going forward. *Children of DCPS teachers aren't given priority access to school choice; they attend their in-bound or lottery result.

I would 100% support teachers (and admin) getting preference for their kids to attend the school where they teach/work. For one thing, during a pandemic, any policy that makes it more manageable for a teacher to return in person should be on the table. Even outside of pandemic considerations, having staff send their kids to their own school shows a commitment to the education offered at that school. Of course, it might mean teachers try to flock to schools with higher test scores. Whatever, even so, I'm for it.

How do people feel if teachers are offered IP spots for their children - even if it means transferring their child into the school - as a way to incentivize teachers to return? This would ultimately take an IP spot away from an existing student but it would also help open up more spots. TBD if the teacher's child would be allowed to bypass lottery/in-bound and keep the spot going forward. *Children of DCPS teachers aren't given priority access to school choice; they attend their in-bound or lottery result.

Anonymous wrote:Janney is offering kids two mornings per week for quarter 2.

This is great and the principal has been working tirelessly to get these logistics figured out, given the cohort restrictions.

however, this IS NOT MEETING ALL DEMAND. Meeting "all demand" is normal length school days. It's 4-5 days per week. "Meeting all demand" is not 7 hours of live school per week.

They didn't say they would meet all demand, so I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Personally, I was happy to see that they're expanding in-person seats, since I had basically already given up much hope of getting our 4th grader back in the building this school year, and am waiting to see how the new CDC guidance might let them add even more seats.

It's useful to keep in mind that demand varies significantly by school, though -- some schools may already be close to meeting all demand, even if demand at Janney is for more than they're providing.