Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Nobody said that.

If you actually care about what is "racist" then sit TF down and listen. But I'm guessing you don't really care...

I'm listening. Explain why we can't offer more days/week for early elementary. The only reasons I've heard is that transportation says it's too hard and we don't feel like implementing 3 feet.

APS has implemented 3 feet distancing, it's how they were able to move many kids off the waitlists.
It's not racist to offer 4 days a week of school. It is racist to say "we need 4 days of school for the poor ELL kids" when you are a white family from Discovery who probably isn't on a speaking basis with any of them.

Have they implemented 3 feet? The presentation has this steps on slide 15 that make it sound like they haven't done it yet. I agree with the second part. There's no need to say you are advocating for the poor ELL kids. Everyone is allowed to choose what is best for them.

In response to CDC's revised distancing guidelines
for classrooms, APS will:
• Perform field observations in schools based on
student stations, classroom layout, furniture
components, bathrooms, egress and ingress,
and circulation
• Determine a prescribed student square footage
based on 3' distancing guidelines
• Verify capacity numbers with schools
• Provide visuals to assist classroom setup
• Update online classroom capacity charts

Yes, that’s how they got 1000 kids off the waitlist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Are you suggesting that Monique O'Grady does not listen to other speakers and just watches the clock until they are done?

I mean, if I was on the School Board, I would have stopped listening long time ago to these parents. And then if they came each time and told me to resign my job, then I would 100% just watch the clock while they were speaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Because you are determined not to understand it.

Or prove me wrong: Why are some families not returning for hybrid? Why might they not return for 4-day in person for the rest of the quarter? How does insisting the APS provide it make things worse for them?

Some families are not returning for hybrid because they have either made a decision that it is not safe for their families or the logistical hurdles (no aftercare, need to work, older children providing childcare for younger children) are too much right now. Right now they would rather stay with the status quo and limp through to the end of the year (understandable). I'm don't have an answer for your third question, which is kind of my point. How does APS providing more days to those who want them make it worse for those who are full time virtual? It does not.

If those families are already getting the services they want, then why are they even speaking out? What more are they hoping to get? Why are they obstructing other families from doing what is right for them? If you don’t want your kid to return to in-person school, then continue to elect virtual or hybrid. I’m glad their selection is working out for them, but don’t try to speak out preventing other families from getting what would work for their kids. No one regardless of race should get to obstruct other people’s children from getting the best education model that works for them.

Do you even hear yourself?

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

*sigh*

Just because the kids are moving back to virtual doesn't mean it's b/c they just want to mess around.

My MS aged kids stayed virtual even though there was the option to go back. They are old enough and aren't struggling with DL. Many of their friends also stayed in DL, so they have people to talk to during asynch time when they are actually doing their work. They can stay in pjs, sit with the dog during english class and snack during 8th period. They are 8th graders and have no interest in going back inside the building for social reasons b/c they have plenty of interaction without school and aren't at risk for the classroom quarantine. It would have been fine for them to go back, but I totally respect the decision to stay virtual since it's not impacting mental health or learning at all in our household.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They shouted over a Latina mom who said her community had not been heard, does not want to go back in person because they're trying to survive, and is being used by others to justify opening.

To be clear, the shouting wasn’t because she was Latina or anything like that, it was because the school board was letting her run over the two minute limit when they held everyone expressing a different view strictly to the two minute limit. I’m not part of APE and I think they are extreme in their views, but it very much came across as the school board selectively enforcing the rules based on the content of the speech, which is extremely problematic.

Why wouldn’t people be upset when the rules are unevenly applied? I think shouting someone down is reprehensible, but I certainly understand the frustration. Using accusations of racism as a cudgel to shut down the opposition may be effective, but the people who fall for it are weak minded.

How many other people did they scream over the very second their time ended?

None. Just the Latina. It's not like she went way over. She was finishing her sentence and the Board chair was about to cut her off and did.

APE was not happy that they got called out for using brown kids as pawns.

The SB never waits until someone finishes their sentences tell them their time is up. The moment your two minutes are up, they interrupt you mid-sentence to thank you for you comments.

If you watch the meeting, you will hear Monique O’Grady cut off a child who was speaking in the middle of a sentence right at the two-minute mark. For he speaker in question here, the crowd did not make noise until she had run ten seconds beyond her time (and they did let her finish the sentence before they called out). It was only once the audience spoke up the Monique OGrady did anything to end the comments.

Maybe MO was listening to the speaker and processing what she was saying on behalf of her community. It was a different voice than the 100s of white privileged parents that have said the same thing over and over. As CDT said, "I hear you! We ALL hear you..... my job is to listen to every voice"

Are you suggesting that Monique O'Grady does not listen to other speakers and just watches the clock until they are done?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Nobody said that.

If you actually care about what is "racist" then sit TF down and listen. But I'm guessing you don't really care...

I'm listening. Explain why we can't offer more days/week for early elementary. The only reasons I've heard is that transportation says it's too hard and we don't feel like implementing 3 feet.

APS has implemented 3 feet distancing, it's how they were able to move many kids off the waitlists.
It's not racist to offer 4 days a week of school. It is racist to say "we need 4 days of school for the poor ELL kids" when you are a white family from Discovery who probably isn't on a speaking basis with any of them.

Have they implemented 3 feet? The presentation has this steps on slide 15 that make it sound like they haven't done it yet. I agree with the second part. There's no need to say you are advocating for the poor ELL kids. Everyone is allowed to choose what is best for them.

In response to CDC's revised distancing guidelines
for classrooms, APS will:
• Perform field observations in schools based on
student stations, classroom layout, furniture
components, bathrooms, egress and ingress,
and circulation
• Determine a prescribed student square footage
based on 3' distancing guidelines
• Verify capacity numbers with schools
• Provide visuals to assist classroom setup
• Update online classroom capacity charts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

Did you watch? He was blaming APS for the shift- and he can’t. That’s a parents decision. We can’t Mian we want schools open and then let them all stay home because they don’t like it. It’s school. Sometimes teenagers don’t like it.

Can’t mean, I mean. The guy was dead wrong.

Moan! Moan! Stupid autocorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

Did you watch? He was blaming APS for the shift- and he can’t. That’s a parents decision. We can’t Mian we want schools open and then let them all stay home because they don’t like it. It’s school. Sometimes teenagers don’t like it.

Can’t mean, I mean. The guy was dead wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

Did you watch? He was blaming APS for the shift- and he can’t. That’s a parents decision. We can’t Mian we want schools open and then let them all stay home because they don’t like it. It’s school. Sometimes teenagers don’t like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Because you are determined not to understand it.

Or prove me wrong: Why are some families not returning for hybrid? Why might they not return for 4-day in person for the rest of the quarter? How does insisting the APS provide it make things worse for them?

Some families are not returning for hybrid because they have either made a decision that it is not safe for their families or the logistical hurdles (no aftercare, need to work, older children providing childcare for younger children) are too much right now. Right now they would rather stay with the status quo and limp through to the end of the year (understandable). I'm don't have an answer for your third question, which is kind of my point. How does APS providing more days to those who want them make it worse for those who are full time virtual? It does not.

If those families are already getting the services they want, then why are they even speaking out? What more are they hoping to get? Why are they obstructing other families from doing what is right for them? If you don’t want your kid to return to in-person school, then continue to elect virtual or hybrid. I’m glad their selection is working out for them, but don’t try to speak out preventing other families from getting what would work for their kids. No one regardless of race should get to obstruct other people’s children from getting the best education model that works for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

They don’t want to wear a mask during a pandemic? Too bad, so sad. That is not APS’ fault. We’re in the middle of a pandemic. So- the solution is throw caution to the wind and go back to April 2019, because it makes them happier?? No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Nobody said that.

If you actually care about what is "racist" then sit TF down and listen. But I'm guessing you don't really care...

I'm listening. Explain why we can't offer more days/week for early elementary. The only reasons I've heard is that transportation says it's too hard and we don't feel like implementing 3 feet.

So you want to hear about RTS and not racism. Shocker.

Go back and rewatch the SB meeting for details about RTS. Might be worth rewatching again when you're not pumped full of rage.

Anonymous wrote:I just watched. I totally disagree with the guy saying that the movement of teens from hybrid to virtual is because of the instructional model. It’s because their parents are allowing them to do so, plain and simple. Some of these people need to take responsibility for what’s happening with their children’s learning. If you let your kid get away with whatever, you can’t expect APS to fix that. Some people need to say no to their kids.

He is upset because some parents opted to let their kids return to virtual b/c their teens didn’t like hybrid?

Hybrid sounded super annoying and wearing a mask all day and not hanging with friends, it doesn’t offer many advantages to teens.

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

It’s not. But when people are upset that other people disagree with them, they say people with differing viewpoints have “white privilege.” What was once a powerful phrase that highlighted a lot of hidden injustices in this country has now been transformed into a weapon when people are unhappy with what someone else has to say. It’s actually a huge disservice to anyone fighting against actual racism. When any and everything is now “white privilege” then nothing is really privilege anymore. Words lose their meaning when they get bastardized and it’s a shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not clear on how offering 4-5 days in person per week to anyone who chooses to attend is racist.

Nobody said that.

If you actually care about what is "racist" then sit TF down and listen. But I'm guessing you don't really care...

I'm listening. Explain why we can't offer more days/week for early elementary. The only reasons I've heard is that transportation says it's too hard and we don't feel like implementing 3 feet.

APS has implemented 3 feet distancing, it's how they were able to move many kids off the waitlists.
It's not racist to offer 4 days a week of school. It is racist to say "we need 4 days of school for the poor ELL kids" when you are a white family from Discovery who probably isn't on a speaking basis with any of them.