I believe in the case of ICSJ it was the archdiocese.
by ChicagoWave03 (2020-11-24 20:51:37)

In reply to: That's a real low-rent move by the school. *  posted by ndtnguy


That’s what AI indicated earlier and consistent with some further messaging our school sent out this evening.

Doesn’t change the fundamental point that the AD is effectively enabling bad faith actors.


Perhaps this wasn’t communicated well to us
by airborneirish  (2020-11-24 21:09:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But the gist has been the AD made the decision based on input from the teachers. 30% of parents wanted to move remote, which was an increase from 15% over the summer. Most of those people anecdotally wanted to go to a second home in Florida or the Caribbean.

We were doing so well and I thought our performance would be a strong point of difference. Now we have stumbled at the goal line. It’s frustrating.


We got a second communication tonight
by ChicagoWave03  (2020-11-24 21:18:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Presumably in response to all the complaints. That communication said the AD apparently divided everyone into three buckets based on the survey responses (both family and teacher). According to our principal, most schools were placed into either “business as usual” (stick with in person) or “pivot” to full remote until MLK day based on these responses. A minority of schools (including ours) were placed in a middle bucket where the AD said you’re on the border and so you decide locally. Our administration chose to use the data to pivot to remote. The email tonight was much better than the one over the weekend, shared data points, and attempted to explain some inconsistencies. I still don’t agree, but at least we got some of the data and some more clarity.