BOE reconsidering the Virtual Academy, Leader in Me, and Innovative School Year Calendar

[Anonymous]

The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

[Anonymous]

I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing what they can waste money on and then choose to get rid of the VA that benefits some students.

There are very few students left in virtual. It would be far more efficient to have a state-wide virtual option.

+1. But the VA proponents always come up with 100 reasons why that isn't a good idea.

We do not have an educational services at the state level so, if they get rid of it, there will be no virtual program. Plenty of other things to cut, starting with the kid museum. Why is mcps funding nonprofits.

Maybe if more parents were advocating for it, they would.

The state is not in the education business. the county is. No one is going to advocate it for the state level but you. So, please go ahead.

Plenty of states offer virtual programs at the state level. If you want to keep putting all your eggs in the MCPS basket, go ahead, maybe your kids are close to graduating and it doesn't matter for you. But for the sake of younger kids, if you were truly invested in a long-term virtual program I would not depend on MCPS to provide it.

That's fine what other states do but their school setup is much different than ours so it's a moot point. I don't expect anything from MCPS. The problem is there isn't a private equivalent except for a few programs that are super competitive like Stanford, and those aren't MCPS-approved for graduation. The programs they have for virtual are homeschooling programs, which is fine for younger kids but not for kids in HS with higher-level courses. I could easily homeschool for elementary but not for MS or HS. And, Stanford is really expensive, so not an option for us.

If you don't like virtual, fine, don't send your kids but why block other families from using it if it works for their families?

Not PP but I wonder if MCPS would expand what it would approve for graduation if they did away with the county VA? My cousin’s DC in Florida was literally taking AP classes online when undergoing cancel treatments, there must be more options out there than what MCPS accepts right now.

+1 to getting rid of kid museum funding! What a waste.

FL uses a different model- it’s a statewide program. So they can offer more classes. There has been more of a push for VA students to enroll in MC classes instead of AP (not necessarily a bad thing).

They are pushing all HS kids to take classes at MC and stopped offering higher level classes at some schools as well as APs. However, in terms of equity, its not fair when juniors may or may not have a license, and it's unreasonable to expect parents to provide cars to juniors and seniors when it could be a very long commute on public transportation, and that assumes there is public transportation nearby. There are some virtual classes but the times are really bad and often after school hours which prohibits kids from either doing the class or after-school activities or jobs.

VA given the number of students in MCPS doesn't need a state model, they just need to offer classes to in person students. FL is set up very differently than we are.

The county wanted MCPS to go big on dual enrolment because Montgomery College had declining enrolment and was in need of a boost

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

No, "the rest of education" is not embracing virtual. Particularly not at a school district level. Student outcomes are poor compared to in-person education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

No, "the rest of education" is not embracing virtual. Particularly not at a school district level. Student outcomes are poor compared to in-person education.

🙄 your argument is tired. Yes they are. The rest of the world is not MoCo genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

No, "the rest of education" is not embracing virtual. Particularly not at a school district level. Student outcomes are poor compared to in-person education.

🙄 your argument is tired. Yes they are. The rest of the world is not MoCo genius.

You should get out into the real world more often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

All it would take is political will to give students who aren’t disruptive a safe learning environment and to make developers pay for the schools their projects need. So you’re right. It’s implausible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

All it would take is political will to give students who aren’t disruptive a safe learning environment and to make developers pay for the schools their projects need. So you’re right. It’s implausible.

The idea that developers would or should pay for schools is ridiculous. They don't pay for it-- the young families buying those homes ultimately pay for it. Twice-- first with the home, then with their taxes. Boomers buying their first homes didn't get hit with an extra charge for building schools-- everyone paid for those schools through their taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait they are thinking of bringing Leader in Me back?!

One can only hope! It was so good!

My kids also loved Leader in Me. I was hoping they had more programming like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

All it would take is political will to give students who aren’t disruptive a safe learning environment and to make developers pay for the schools their projects need. So you’re right. It’s implausible.

The idea that developers would or should pay for schools is ridiculous. They don't pay for it-- the young families buying those homes ultimately pay for it. Twice-- first with the home, then with their taxes. Boomers buying their first homes didn't get hit with an extra charge for building schools-- everyone paid for those schools through their taxes.

I disagree. The developers have to pay their fair share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

All it would take is political will to give students who aren’t disruptive a safe learning environment and to make developers pay for the schools their projects need. So you’re right. It’s implausible.

The idea that developers would or should pay for schools is ridiculous. They don't pay for it-- the young families buying those homes ultimately pay for it. Twice-- first with the home, then with their taxes. Boomers buying their first homes didn't get hit with an extra charge for building schools-- everyone paid for those schools through their taxes.

I disagree. The developers have to pay their fair share.

OK, but their fair share is nothing. There's a housing shortage. Families need a place to live. You're just trying to avoid paying your fair share for schools. You benefited from public policies when you were younger that paid for schools from taxes. But now that you're an older homeowner, you want to push the costs onto young families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

No, "the rest of education" is not embracing virtual. Particularly not at a school district level. Student outcomes are poor compared to in-person education.

🙄 your argument is tired. Yes they are. The rest of the world is not MoCo genius.

You should get out into the real world more often.

Lol. Give it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad none of you yammering on about the “dangers” of virtual are running a school system. You all are why MCPS needs equity measures. The entitlement is impressive I’ll say. You are nobody. You aren’t in charge. No one cares if you don’t like virtual or feel it’s taking away “your tax dollars”. If you really feel this passionate about taking away a vulnerable child’s right to education then feel free to act like an imbecile (re Open MCPS idiots) and scream your head off about virtual at the next board meeting if you want to. None of your arguments are valid or worthy here. It’s frankly embarrassing some of you are still running your mouth about something the rest of education is embracing.

No, "the rest of education" is not embracing virtual. Particularly not at a school district level. Student outcomes are poor compared to in-person education.

🙄 your argument is tired. Yes they are. The rest of the world is not MoCo genius.

You should get out into the real world more often.

Lol. Give it up.

You're the one fighting the uphill battle to support an ineffective educational method. 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, kids will still be going to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way MCPS should fund VA is it’s used for kids who can’t behave in regular school and to address overcrowding when there’s new development.

Neither of those is plausible.

All it would take is political will to give students who aren’t disruptive a safe learning environment and to make developers pay for the schools their projects need. So you’re right. It’s implausible.

The idea that developers would or should pay for schools is ridiculous. They don't pay for it-- the young families buying those homes ultimately pay for it. Twice-- first with the home, then with their taxes. Boomers buying their first homes didn't get hit with an extra charge for building schools-- everyone paid for those schools through their taxes.

I disagree. The developers have to pay their fair share.

OK, but their fair share is nothing. There's a housing shortage. Families need a place to live. You're just trying to avoid paying your fair share for schools. You benefited from public policies when you were younger that paid for schools from taxes. But now that you're an older homeowner, you want to push the costs onto young families.

That assumes that develops can push the cost onto buyers. At some point, they can’t because people will buy resale houses instead of new. We don’t really need more houses in MoCo-/we are pretty dense already. We just need more turnover. Developers make tons of money so at least some of the cost will likely come out of their pocket—the market won’t support moving it all to consumers. Perfectly good houses are getting ripped down every day because developers profits are so insanely high. And then all that is available is 1.6M mega builds instead of nice modest family homes. developers are creating this housing crisis and making it harder for you to buy a house. Cutting back on their profits will help you.