Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at a charter. Parents and administration has wanted to bring kids back for months. But, with mandatory 6-ft distancing, it was simply not possible in their current space. The mayor's guidance last week was a game changer, in making the social distancing optional. They are bringing all the kids back in the building for June.

I am not happy that they have been remote for so long, but it's hard for me to blame the school. Until last week, the mayor was mandating conditions (based on CDC recommendations) that were impossible to satisfy, given the school's facilities.

Other schools may have other issues, but at least at my charter they would have had kids back 6 months ago, but for the official guidance from higher ups.

That's nice that you bought their story hook line and sinker. Every other school that wanted to brought back some portion of the kids, or did hybrid schooling in order to accommodate 6 feet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

And so were some charters. It isn't like DCPS is doing an amazing job compared to charters. Having a few middle and high school kids in school learning online is not actually school and way more damaging at that age then Appletree not doing in person play. These high schooler who are trying to break the cycle and get into college have been completely cheated by DCPS too.

hmm would be nice if say the newspaper of record actually addressed whether DCPS or charters are doing better, and why.

Right this. Come on WaPo you've really sucked this pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at a charter. Parents and administration has wanted to bring kids back for months. But, with mandatory 6-ft distancing, it was simply not possible in their current space. The mayor's guidance last week was a game changer, in making the social distancing optional. They are bringing all the kids back in the building for June.

I am not happy that they have been remote for so long, but it's hard for me to blame the school. Until last week, the mayor was mandating conditions (based on CDC recommendations) that were impossible to satisfy, given the school's facilities.

Other schools may have other issues, but at least at my charter they would have had kids back 6 months ago, but for the official guidance from higher ups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

And so were some charters. It isn't like DCPS is doing an amazing job compared to charters. Having a few middle and high school kids in school learning online is not actually school and way more damaging at that age then Appletree not doing in person play. These high schooler who are trying to break the cycle and get into college have been completely cheated by DCPS too.

hmm would be nice if say the newspaper of record actually addressed whether DCPS or charters are doing better, and why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

That’s what happens when the Mayor doesn’t have a clear vision or plan. Schools have to do what’s best under their own situation and families on anonymous message boards can yell and complain about the teachers and admin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

And so were some charters. It isn't like DCPS is doing an amazing job compared to charters. Having a few middle and high school kids in school learning online is not actually school and way more damaging at that age then Appletree not doing in person play. These high schooler who are trying to break the cycle and get into college have been completely cheated by DCPS too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

except some DCPS schools were able to bring a good portion of kids back in person all day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

That was probably the best they could logistically provide under the constraints. That’s been a big part of why reopening is such a hard and complicated issue and not all about the wtu boogeymen...
DDOH AND DCPS protocols give a template to schools and they do their best to make it work. You’re right that it’s not equitable toward single parent families or parents that had to go back to work and couldn’t afford a nanny to pick up their kid from school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article by well known, experienced reporter: charters did not fully open, partially due to low demand from some members of the community.

DCUM posters: that’s not possible because it’s not what I want! Someone must have gotten to Perry Stein

It's the "due to low demand" question that deserves MUCH better reporting than we got. How did she assess demand? How many school parents did she talk to? Did she talk to any homeless parents at Roots? Did she look at the research that indicates that demand is driven by the school's actions, and parents take their cues from the school? And how about the "due to" part. Was it "due to" parent demand, or was it "due to" self-interested decisions by adminstration and teachers? And how about challenging that absoutely absurd quote by the Roots adminstrator at the end suggesting that online learning is just as good as in person?

I mean, it's like you want us to all collectively ignore the the fact that a) there is tons of evidence that DL is terrible for kids, especially at risk kids and b) schools can reopen safely and c) private/parochials/and other urban publics are open.

This is the most important question. Our school continues to say that demand was low, but all the parents I know at the school wanted kids back in person. The survey our charter sent did not even have an option for 4 days a week, full full day (9-3:30), which is the only way it could be workable for most dual-working or single parent homes. They designed the survey to get the result they wanted - no IPL - by only offering options that were completely impossible logistically for almost anyone, like two mornings a week.

Anonymous wrote:you don't have to send your kids back next year. This seems like a thing the markets will easily correct if parents care as much as some people imply