Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now Jack Smith is claiming that the MD-state-provided metrics are not sufficient.

MoCo apparently needs different, special "complex" metrics.

Of course they are. If you don't like the metrics, demand other metrics while claiming there's a lack of guidance.

He clearly has no intention of reopening this school year. If the BoE isn't willing to step up (and there's no sign they will), cross your fingers for next fall. But by then we'll be dealing with the anti-vaxxers.

Smith did say they are developing a Dashboard with clear metrics or reopening-- I think that is progress.

Anonymous wrote:Now Jack Smith is claiming that the MD-state-provided metrics are not sufficient.

MoCo apparently needs different, special "complex" metrics.

I thought we believed in science in MoCo? At least that's what the signs say that my neighbors have on their lawns. What about the group of renowned experts from JHU and UMD that have been advising the state on reopening metrics?

Anonymous wrote:Now Jack Smith is claiming that the MD-state-provided metrics are not sufficient.

MoCo apparently needs different, special "complex" metrics.

Of course they are. If you don't like the metrics, demand other metrics while claiming there's a lack of guidance.

He clearly has no intention of reopening this school year. If the BoE isn't willing to step up (and there's no sign they will), cross your fingers for next fall. But by then we'll be dealing with the anti-vaxxers.

There will be a meeting on Sept. 17th dedicated to the special education rotation into buildings.

On the 22nd, will discuss the diagnostic plan and tutoring.

Following meeting, other small group rotations.

So apparently, not even on the agenda for the next 3 meetings to discuss re-opening schools at any time if not in one of the special small groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. The adoption of criteria that will be used to determine when schools can reopen isn't a significant change?

And, mind you, the Superintendent suggested they have their own criteria, or at least their own way of interpreting the state criteria. That's a decision that was apparently made in private, and the contents of that decision haven't been announced.

That will be used BY WHOM to determine?

All of the circumstances surrounding the decision for remote instruction are still the same. There's still no vaccine, there's still community transmission, there still aren't a lot of effective treatments, teachers are still worried, parents are still worried, there's still very little data on transmission in schools and the effectiveness of mitigation measures in schools. All still as true this week as two weeks ago and six weeks ago.

That's the question, isn't it? Ostensibly the school boards and superintendents are supposed to be using those metrics, but in practice it looks like the teachers union can ignore the metrics identified by elected policymakers and force their own decisions on everyone else.

Unless you're comfortable with a small number of union leaders making major decisions for families and students across the county, we need the BoE to step up.

I don't remember the governor making those metrics mandatory. When did he do that?

OK, so you prefer MCEA simply deciding for everyone, rather than elected leaders consulting with public health experts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jack Smith says enrollment is down 2,200 students K-12, and 1,000 students in PreK.

Pre-K is only income-eligible kids (head start and otherwise). That's more concerning than "pods" and flight to private schools.

But the benefit of remote instruction for pre-K, for families, has to be a lot less than the benefit of actual pre-K.

To add: Pre-K is also special education students in the MCPS PEP program (not income based). My son is in PEP. Distance learning is not appropriate for him. This was our first week. So far it has essentially watching YouTube videos that the teacher plays on her screen. PE consisted of having the kids walk in place. It was so sad. She did say this week is more about getting to know everyone and learning the rules. I am hoping it will be better when the actual curriculum starts. These children need to be receiving services in person.

Now Jack Smith is claiming that the MD-state-provided metrics are not sufficient.

MoCo apparently needs different, special "complex" metrics.

Anonymous wrote:Patricia O'Neill: "children are certainly vectors" for spreading Covid.

The level of misinformation is stunning.

I don't think she's saying anything that's strictly wrong, but as she said herself, she's watching cable news too much. She's not seeing the big picture- she's just seeing the bad news that encourages clicks.

It's obvious she's never going to agree to open schools. But what would you expect from an Apple-ballot board member?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Patricia O'Neill: "children are certainly vectors" for spreading Covid.

The level of misinformation is stunning.

Did she say that children are vectors? If so, that's not misinformation.

As a justification for keeping schools closed, it is. There is extremely low to nonexistent transmission from children to teachers. Her expressed concern for reopening was for the teachers as she recognized children are at minimal risk for serious impact from Covid.

Says who? And when did they say that?

Anonymous wrote:
Patricia O'Neill: "children are certainly vectors" for spreading Covid.

The level of misinformation is stunning.


Did she say that children are vectors? If so, that's not misinformation.

As a justification for keeping schools closed, it is. There is extremely low to nonexistent transmission from children to teachers. Her expressed concern for reopening was for the teachers as she recognized children are at minimal risk for serious impact from Covid.

Anonymous wrote:Patricia O'Neill: "children are certainly vectors" for spreading Covid.

The level of misinformation is stunning.

Did she say that children are vectors? If so, that's not misinformation.

Patricia O'Neill: "children are certainly vectors" for spreading Covid.

The level of misinformation is stunning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. The adoption of criteria that will be used to determine when schools can reopen isn't a significant change?

And, mind you, the Superintendent suggested they have their own criteria, or at least their own way of interpreting the state criteria. That's a decision that was apparently made in private, and the contents of that decision haven't been announced.

That will be used BY WHOM to determine?

All of the circumstances surrounding the decision for remote instruction are still the same. There's still no vaccine, there's still community transmission, there still aren't a lot of effective treatments, teachers are still worried, parents are still worried, there's still very little data on transmission in schools and the effectiveness of mitigation measures in schools. All still as true this week as two weeks ago and six weeks ago.

That's the question, isn't it? Ostensibly the school boards and superintendents are supposed to be using those metrics, but in practice it looks like the teachers union can ignore the metrics identified by elected policymakers and force their own decisions on everyone else.

Unless you're comfortable with a small number of union leaders making major decisions for families and students across the county, we need the BoE to step up.

I don't remember the governor making those metrics mandatory. When did he do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exploring options for small group in-person instruction

Including early childhood, ESOL, academic support, CTE, special education

Sept. 17th meeting will go into more detail on these plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. The adoption of criteria that will be used to determine when schools can reopen isn't a significant change?

And, mind you, the Superintendent suggested they have their own criteria, or at least their own way of interpreting the state criteria. That's a decision that was apparently made in private, and the contents of that decision haven't been announced.

That will be used BY WHOM to determine?

All of the circumstances surrounding the decision for remote instruction are still the same. There's still no vaccine, there's still community transmission, there still aren't a lot of effective treatments, teachers are still worried, parents are still worried, there's still very little data on transmission in schools and the effectiveness of mitigation measures in schools. All still as true this week as two weeks ago and six weeks ago.

That's the question, isn't it? Ostensibly the school boards and superintendents are supposed to be using those metrics, but in practice it looks like the teachers union can ignore the metrics identified by elected policymakers and force their own decisions on everyone else.

Unless you're comfortable with a small number of union leaders making major decisions for families and students across the county, we need the BoE to step up.