Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Prioritizing those kids in spring 2020 was the right thing to do. Prioritizing those students the first term of fall 2020 was a nice thing to do. Prioritizing those students after winter break was bat poop crazy and contrary to what the majority of states were able to do.

Hearst didn’t prioritize OOB students that’s just not an accurate representation of what happened.

-1. I know several IB families that were denied seats, despite begging the principal for relief. While multiple OOB families were accompanied in the same class. This is literally the opposite of what is supposed to have happened and probably illegal.

Parents don’t get to make that choice: it was based on student data and teacher observations. Parents don’t get to have their way just bc they want it

You seem to have a answer for everything. So tell us why so many IB families heading for the exits?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Prioritizing those kids in spring 2020 was the right thing to do. Prioritizing those students the first term of fall 2020 was a nice thing to do. Prioritizing those students after winter break was bat poop crazy and contrary to what the majority of states were able to do.

Hearst didn’t prioritize OOB students that’s just not an accurate representation of what happened.

-1. I know several IB families that were denied seats, despite begging the principal for relief. While multiple OOB families were accompanied in the same class. This is literally the opposite of what is supposed to have happened and probably illegal.

Parents don’t get to make that choice: it was based on student data and teacher observations. Parents don’t get to have their way just bc they want it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Prioritizing those kids in spring 2020 was the right thing to do. Prioritizing those students the first term of fall 2020 was a nice thing to do. Prioritizing those students after winter break was bat poop crazy and contrary to what the majority of states were able to do.

Hearst didn’t prioritize OOB students that’s just not an accurate representation of what happened.

-1. I know several IB families that were denied seats, despite begging the principal for relief. While multiple OOB families were accompanied in the same class. This is literally the opposite of what is supposed to have happened and probably illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Prioritizing those kids in spring 2020 was the right thing to do. Prioritizing those students the first term of fall 2020 was a nice thing to do. Prioritizing those students after winter break was bat poop crazy and contrary to what the majority of states were able to do.

Hearst didn’t prioritize OOB students that’s just not an accurate representation of what happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Prioritizing those kids in spring 2020 was the right thing to do. Prioritizing those students the first term of fall 2020 was a nice thing to do. Prioritizing those students after winter break was bat poop crazy and contrary to what the majority of states were able to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Thank you. Prioritizing the students most in need is the right thing to do in my mind, even though it meant my kids didn't get prioritized, which was hard. Hopefully the hot-miked family and those with similar attitudes moved on.

Anonymous wrote:Hearst prioritized in-person learning for kids with the most need -- for instance, kids who were struggling to stay on grade-level, or kids with special needs. That meant that some kids who didn't have those needs had very limited in-person learning last year.

Some members of our school community are, let's say, less community-minded than others. Although, with the exception of one memorable phone call when a parents was hot-miked when she thought she was muted, people generally have the grace to at least not be in-your-face rude about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.

What does it mean that your IB kid wouldn't get "a seat"? IB kids have to be admitted, so I don't understand what you're saying that OOB kids were a higher priority for. Is this at Hearst or Deal? I'm confused by your post.

I think that poster means during the pretend school Hearst had last spring.

Thank you - never would have figured that out. What did the pretend school look like? Lots of kids at DCPS and charter schools were not invited to come back in person at all last year, so I'm curious what made this so contentious at Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.

What does it mean that your IB kid wouldn't get "a seat"? IB kids have to be admitted, so I don't understand what you're saying that OOB kids were a higher priority for. Is this at Hearst or Deal? I'm confused by your post.

I think that poster means during the pretend school Hearst had last spring.

Thank you - never would have figured that out. What did the pretend school look like? Lots of kids at DCPS and charter schools were not invited to come back in person at all last year, so I'm curious what made this so contentious at Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.

What does it mean that your IB kid wouldn't get "a seat"? IB kids have to be admitted, so I don't understand what you're saying that OOB kids were a higher priority for. Is this at Hearst or Deal? I'm confused by your post.

I think that poster means during the pretend school Hearst had last spring.

Thank you - never would have figured that out. What did the pretend school look like? Lots of kids at DCPS and charter schools were not invited to come back in person at all last year, so I'm curious what made this so contentious at Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.

What does it mean that your IB kid wouldn't get "a seat"? IB kids have to be admitted, so I don't understand what you're saying that OOB kids were a higher priority for. Is this at Hearst or Deal? I'm confused by your post.

I think that poster means during the pretend school Hearst had last spring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.

What does it mean that your IB kid wouldn't get "a seat"? IB kids have to be admitted, so I don't understand what you're saying that OOB kids were a higher priority for. Is this at Hearst or Deal? I'm confused by your post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how this will affect the already-crowded Deal down the line. Unless these Hearst OOB kids were already in Deal feeders.

Not a particularly helpful or welcoming comment. OOB families are DC residents who also pay DC taxes and have every right to attend a DC public school where they were offered a slot through the DC public school lottery.

You must not have a kid at Deal

+1. Not thrilled that my IB kid will be spending the year learning in a mobile home while OOB kids will be in brand new classrooms. Especially after a year when the principal would not offer my IB kid an seat because others (mostly OOB) were a higher priority. Sorry.