Support the Montgomery Virtual Academy (MVA) from Budget Cuts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

No, it wouldn't. Enrollment was dropping rapidly. The MVA supporters claim this was just due to MCPS restricting enrollees, but some elementary grades had fewer than 40 kids spread across 3 teachers! No wonder those were so motivated to keep it going. A lot of the posters here are probably teachers pretending to be parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

No, it wouldn't. Enrollment was dropping rapidly. The MVA supporters claim this was just due to MCPS restricting enrollees, but some elementary grades had fewer than 40 kids spread across 3 teachers! No wonder those were so motivated to keep it going. A lot of the posters here are probably teachers pretending to be parents.

They were not letting kids off the waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just love that the person who says “significant school choice” is the “only” thing that’ll salvage American education is hellbent on denying others that same choice. The cognitive dissonance is astounding but not surprising.

I'm not the school choice poster, but I'll note that the MVA supporters aren't any better. They now like to talk about how important it is to offer the choice of virtual because not all kids can learn in the same environment, but they still won't acknowledge it was wrong to deny kids a similar choice for 18 months until the fall of 2021.

The reality is everyone is watching out for themselves and their kids. If you want to send your kids to MVA, or you want to teach in MVA, then that means coming up with arguments to support it, regardless of any logical inconsistencies with previous positions expressed. If you send your kids to MCPS schools, then that means advocating for maximizing the resources available to those schools by keeping MVA closed.

Actually most MVA parents fully acknowledge that virtual didn’t work for everyone. It’s in person parents who won’t acknowledge virtual works for others without trying to say they are bad parents, want kids to go on vacations, shield their eyes from school clothing (the most bizarre argument yet), etc.

I've never heard a single MVA supporter acknowledge that kids should have had the opportunity to go to school in fall 2020. Some even point to MVA as an example for the rest of MCPS to follow.

Because we are good people who agreed kids should be virtual due to the pandemic, health care was overloaded and the high transmission rate. Why cannot you acknowledge how serious covid was at that time?

Not by the fall.

You forgot about omnicron.

Partly given the misspelling, I can't tell if that was a joke. Assuming you were serious, Omicron wasn't until after MCPS reopened, and MCPS remained open. We certainly could have reopened in fall 2020.

We could have reopened in fall 2020, and we should have (in my opinion), but I think it's relevant that omicron was after the vaccines, while fall 2020 was before the vaccines.

Your opinion is wrong. Sorry you lost your free child care. This has nothing to do with the mva so move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

No, it wouldn't. Enrollment was dropping rapidly. The MVA supporters claim this was just due to MCPS restricting enrollees, but some elementary grades had fewer than 40 kids spread across 3 teachers! No wonder those were so motivated to keep it going. A lot of the posters here are probably teachers pretending to be parents.

They were not letting kids off the waitlist.

Not exactly the sort of educational outcomes you hope to see with class sizes of 12 kids per teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just love that the person who says “significant school choice” is the “only” thing that’ll salvage American education is hellbent on denying others that same choice. The cognitive dissonance is astounding but not surprising.

I'm not the school choice poster, but I'll note that the MVA supporters aren't any better. They now like to talk about how important it is to offer the choice of virtual because not all kids can learn in the same environment, but they still won't acknowledge it was wrong to deny kids a similar choice for 18 months until the fall of 2021.

The reality is everyone is watching out for themselves and their kids. If you want to send your kids to MVA, or you want to teach in MVA, then that means coming up with arguments to support it, regardless of any logical inconsistencies with previous positions expressed. If you send your kids to MCPS schools, then that means advocating for maximizing the resources available to those schools by keeping MVA closed.

Actually most MVA parents fully acknowledge that virtual didn’t work for everyone. It’s in person parents who won’t acknowledge virtual works for others without trying to say they are bad parents, want kids to go on vacations, shield their eyes from school clothing (the most bizarre argument yet), etc.

I've never heard a single MVA supporter acknowledge that kids should have had the opportunity to go to school in fall 2020. Some even point to MVA as an example for the rest of MCPS to follow.

Because we are good people who agreed kids should be virtual due to the pandemic, health care was overloaded and the high transmission rate. Why cannot you acknowledge how serious covid was at that time?

Not by the fall.

You forgot about omnicron.

Partly given the misspelling, I can't tell if that was a joke. Assuming you were serious, Omicron wasn't until after MCPS reopened, and MCPS remained open. We certainly could have reopened in fall 2020.

We could have reopened in fall 2020, and we should have (in my opinion), but I think it's relevant that omicron was after the vaccines, while fall 2020 was before the vaccines.

Your opinion is wrong. Sorry you lost your free child care. This has nothing to do with the mva so move on.

Sorry you lost your free private school experience. Time to pay up or send your kids to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

No, it wouldn't. Enrollment was dropping rapidly. The MVA supporters claim this was just due to MCPS restricting enrollees, but some elementary grades had fewer than 40 kids spread across 3 teachers! No wonder those were so motivated to keep it going. A lot of the posters here are probably teachers pretending to be parents.

They were not letting kids off the waitlist.

Weird that there was a waitlist when more than two-thirds of the kids who originally enrolled in the program left within 2 years. What were they gatekeeping with a waitlist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the VA that brings out the worst in people? Jealousy can be so ugly.

It feels like for some strange reason, people who wish their kids were in-person in 2020-21 somehow see the end of the virtual academy as a "win" in some battle against "enemies" who wanted kids to be virtual in 2020-21, even though of course it's ridiculous. But that's my assessment of the dynamics here.

Some of the most vocal MVA supporters want to take a step back to 2020-2021. They want more kids doing school virtually, including MCPS schools switching to virtual when it would be convenient to do so.

I mean, even if it's true that some of the people who support/have kids at MVA also support virtual learning for all MCPS kids on snow days (or whatever it is they support that you oppose), I'm sure it's not all of them. And even if it were, it's still incredibly childish to take the position "I disagree with certain people on something, so I am deeply invested in watching and cheering for bad things to happen to them so I can feel like I'm a winner and they're a loser."

(I have no dog in this fight-- we go to in-person school, don't anticipate ever wanting to use virtual school, and my kid didn't start kindergarten until 2021 so I missed all that drama. But it's just so sad and ugly to see some kids and families talking about how important it is to them have virtual options for a wide variety of reasons, and be answered with this reflexive "I hate virtual school because I wish my kid hadn't had to do virtual school during the pandemic, so I hate anyone who supports virtual school for any reason, and will laugh and gloat about them being upset to lose it.")

Someone with a jaded perspective, with a dash or more of trauma induced from the extended school closures, might wonder if there mere presence of MVA increases the chance of future school closures within the system. And honestly, I think it does, even if just a little. We already know MCPS would love to be able to get away with virtual snow days, even when they're the worthless asynchronous variety. And given that so many have refused to acknowledge the mistakes of the school closures, I don't have a lot of confidence that MCPS wouldn't repeat them if given the chance.

I don't really buy this, but regardless, it does not feel like there's any real rational reasoning from the rabid MVA opponents-- just knee-jerk nastiness. Unless decent people (regardless of how they feel about the MVA or any other individual issue) make it clear that kind of behavior is unacceptable, I suspect these people will spend the next decade spewing vitriol at anything they oppose and acting like they're justified because their kids had to do virtual school and they didn't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 68 pages of ping ponging about whether COVID is still a thing or not, I'll weigh in. I'm not even a little bit afraid of COVID or any other contagion right now. Yet I still see value in a virtual option for kids who either can't or don't want to attend school. Is virtual as effective as in person? Of course not. Is it better than no school at all (which is what the data says about 25% or more kids in MCPS). MCPS is willing to waste tens of millions on all kinds of nonsense. Virtual school seems like a good investment that could use some improvement such as a state-run virtual school that all the counties could join, economies of scale and all.

What makes you think that kids who don’t bother attending in-person school would be present for virtual school? The chronic absenteeism rates for the MVA were higher than in-person and the graduation rates for NCS were lower.

It's easier to attend school from home (or wherever) than it is to go in person. Remove barriers and we'll serve more kids. It's that simple. We can never serve everyone and we have to acknowledge that. And because we don't need $200 million for a school for these kids virtual school should save $ once some of the issues are ironed out.

DP. Except the evidence is that this is wrong. MVA has worse issues with attendance than in person school and the issues with chronic absenteeism exploded after virtual instruction was required and have gotten better now that in person is returning to being the norm. During the pandemic Connecticut collected data on this and chronic absenteeism was worse for students with more remote learning. The bolded has a certain logic to it, but I'm the real world that's not how it plays out.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Kids in virtual are already outliers. So of course they'll have more issues. And I'm not sure we should care. We have in person which serves 95% of kids. Virtual could serve another 4%. And we can leave the other 1% who doesn't care behind instead of spending 80% of our resources on those kids.

MVA wasn't serving 4%. It was serving closer to 0.5%, which is well below your proposed threshold for abandonment.

Those were my numbers and I was just using them as an example. If MVA was improved and promoted it very well might be 4 or even 8 percent. The point is that it doesn't require a building or transportation so it should be a lot cheaper. Why throw that away when it could be a good option for some kids.

No, it wouldn't. Enrollment was dropping rapidly. The MVA supporters claim this was just due to MCPS restricting enrollees, but some elementary grades had fewer than 40 kids spread across 3 teachers! No wonder those were so motivated to keep it going. A lot of the posters here are probably teachers pretending to be parents.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous]

Look at the enrollment numbers by grade and the number of teachers listed by grade on the MVA staff directory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the enrollment numbers by grade and the number of teachers listed by grade on the MVA staff directory.

Just did. Nothing shows a decline in enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the enrollment numbers by grade and the number of teachers listed by grade on the MVA staff directory.

Just did. Nothing shows a decline in enrollment.

https://moderatelymoco.com/exclusive-mpia-results-mcps-virtual-academy-under-the-microscope-with-a-disappointing-report-card/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the enrollment numbers by grade and the number of teachers listed by grade on the MVA staff directory.

Just did. Nothing shows a decline in enrollment.

lol the program lost over 40% of its enrollees year over year two years in a row, and enrollment was down more than 67% overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the enrollment numbers by grade and the number of teachers listed by grade on the MVA staff directory.

Just did. Nothing shows a decline in enrollment.

lol the program lost over 40% of its enrollees year over year two years in a row, and enrollment was down more than 67% overall.

Why do you think "number of students" is the best way to measure enrollment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just love that the person who says “significant school choice” is the “only” thing that’ll salvage American education is hellbent on denying others that same choice. The cognitive dissonance is astounding but not surprising.

I'm not the school choice poster, but I'll note that the MVA supporters aren't any better. They now like to talk about how important it is to offer the choice of virtual because not all kids can learn in the same environment, but they still won't acknowledge it was wrong to deny kids a similar choice for 18 months until the fall of 2021.

The reality is everyone is watching out for themselves and their kids. If you want to send your kids to MVA, or you want to teach in MVA, then that means coming up with arguments to support it, regardless of any logical inconsistencies with previous positions expressed. If you send your kids to MCPS schools, then that means advocating for maximizing the resources available to those schools by keeping MVA closed.

Actually most MVA parents fully acknowledge that virtual didn’t work for everyone. It’s in person parents who won’t acknowledge virtual works for others without trying to say they are bad parents, want kids to go on vacations, shield their eyes from school clothing (the most bizarre argument yet), etc.

I've never heard a single MVA supporter acknowledge that kids should have had the opportunity to go to school in fall 2020. Some even point to MVA as an example for the rest of MCPS to follow.

Because we are good people who agreed kids should be virtual due to the pandemic, health care was overloaded and the high transmission rate. Why cannot you acknowledge how serious covid was at that time?

Not by the fall.

You forgot about omnicron.

Partly given the misspelling, I can't tell if that was a joke. Assuming you were serious, Omicron wasn't until after MCPS reopened, and MCPS remained open. We certainly could have reopened in fall 2020.

We could have reopened in fall 2020, and we should have (in my opinion), but I think it's relevant that omicron was after the vaccines, while fall 2020 was before the vaccines.

Your opinion is wrong. Sorry you lost your free child care. This has nothing to do with the mva so move on.

I'm the PP you're responding to. My kids were in high school.