Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?
I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?
I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?
I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.
Who are you to say it’s a false belief schools are unsafe? Schools have been proven to be unsafe for Black children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?
I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
I never said I expected each school to offer its own virtual programming. I don’t think one school is enough though. What if the mission of Friendship is not one that you align with? What if you want a different experience virtually, such as language immersion or Montessori? Those models ARE possible in a virtual setting, so why not offer it?
I’m tired of all the excuses that are easy solved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
If its at another, dedicated online school, fine. But asking one school to teach both ways is a disaster.
1) IF you insist on simulcasting, you get terrible teaching for the kids at home AND at school.
2) If you have a dedicated online-only class and teacher, it creates major staffing issues when the numbers of kids who want online/at home don't add up. And a disaster for specials.
3) It creates issues of equity, which, to address, means the in person kids have to do the same things as the at home kids - which imposes huge limits on projects, materials, cooperative group learning, specials, field trips, etc.
4) It creates two worlds that the administration has to manage, including all the in person logistics, tech support, investment etc.
If DC wants to make Friendship open to all as an online-only school, fantastic. But asking each school to do both will be a terrible outcome for everyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.
Who are you to say it’s a false belief schools are unsafe? Schools have been proven to be unsafe for Black children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Anyone who authentically wants the choice can do homeschool or enroll in Friendship Online Charter. Virtual as an option (in the absence of a documented IEP with Home/Hospital placement) is not an adequate education. And it is completely infeasible for individual schools to manage virtual options and in person at the same time. More importantly, families need to be pushed back into school instead of being allowed to make a "choice" based on a false belief that schools are unsafe.
Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Because some teachers have to teach both the zoom group and the live group at the same time, which is nigh on impossible.
Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.
Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused as to why some of you don’t want to allow for the *choice* of virtual learning? It wouldn’t be a requirement, so how exactly would it affect you and your family? Virtual works for some kids, so why not let them continue doing what works for them? There’s no need for us to revert back to school the way it was - there is room for change, especially if it isn’t forced.