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

[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.

Why is it not plausible for disruptive students rather than moving them to another physical 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.

The subsidies we’re giving developers through tax breaks and straight cash haven’t produced more housing. Our housing production is at its lowest level ever. The developers keep the subsidies as profits. They don’t pass them on to buyers and renters. I don’t want to subsidize the 1 percent. The limited resources that we have for subsidizing housing should go exclusively to income-restricted housing.

MoCo has had impact fees since the 1990s. Before that, new development provided infrastructure on a proffer system, which was unpredictable and more costly than the impact fees, so young families have been paying for schools for a long time. A lot of things have changed about housing development in MoCo since the 1990s. Most important, new homes available for purchase make up a smaller share of new housing, so of course it’s harder to buy a house here. If you want to help young families, start by figuring out how to make condos and other starter homes make more financial sense for developers than rentals. If your interest is more in helping developers make big profits, cut impact fees and grant property tax abatements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Much of MoCo isn't dense. That's the problem. People fight dense development, which is why we see so many "mega builds" instead of townhomes. Only much greater supply will address housing problems, but people that already own are interested in artificially constraining the supply. And, to add to that, now they want to artificially increase costs by shifting school costs onto homebuyers instead of taxpayers in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

878 last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Much of MoCo isn't dense. That's the problem. People fight dense development, which is why we see so many "mega builds" instead of townhomes. Only much greater supply will address housing problems, but people that already own are interested in artificially constraining the supply. And, to add to that, now they want to artificially increase costs by shifting school costs onto homebuyers instead of taxpayers in general.

There’s no new shifting of costs onto homebuyers. Costs have been shifting from developers to taxpayers in general over the years, and yet housing has gotten more expensive, so the relationship between impact fees and prices seems attenuated if not negatively correlated in this market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The subsidies we’re giving developers through tax breaks and straight cash haven’t produced more housing. Our housing production is at its lowest level ever. The developers keep the subsidies as profits. They don’t pass them on to buyers and renters. I don’t want to subsidize the 1 percent. The limited resources that we have for subsidizing housing should go exclusively to income-restricted housing.

MoCo has had impact fees since the 1990s. Before that, new development provided infrastructure on a proffer system, which was unpredictable and more costly than the impact fees, so young families have been paying for schools for a long time. A lot of things have changed about housing development in MoCo since the 1990s. Most important, new homes available for purchase make up a smaller share of new housing, so of course it’s harder to buy a house here. If you want to help young families, start by figuring out how to make condos and other starter homes make more financial sense for developers than rentals. If your interest is more in helping developers make big profits, cut impact fees and grant property tax abatements.

Don't subsidize development. But don't discourage it, either. The county makes it too hard to build dense housing, which is why we end up with McMansions going up. Trying to keep density the same heavily favors developing high-end homes.

Drop the impact fees, tax abatements, and zoning requiring SFHs, and let local taxes pay for schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Much of MoCo isn't dense. That's the problem. People fight dense development, which is why we see so many "mega builds" instead of townhomes. Only much greater supply will address housing problems, but people that already own are interested in artificially constraining the supply. And, to add to that, now they want to artificially increase costs by shifting school costs onto homebuyers instead of taxpayers in general.

There’s no new shifting of costs onto homebuyers. Costs have been shifting from developers to taxpayers in general over the years, and yet housing has gotten more expensive, so the relationship between impact fees and prices seems attenuated if not negatively correlated in this market.

Limiting supply through zoning policies is going to have that effect on housing costs.

[Anonymous]

one of the Innovative Calendar schools is K-2 but the "paired" 3-5 school is on a traditional calendar

This is so dumb, OMG. I’m not generally an MCPS basher but Christ on a cracker why couldn’t they pick a different school to try that out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The subsidies we’re giving developers through tax breaks and straight cash haven’t produced more housing. Our housing production is at its lowest level ever. The developers keep the subsidies as profits. They don’t pass them on to buyers and renters. I don’t want to subsidize the 1 percent. The limited resources that we have for subsidizing housing should go exclusively to income-restricted housing.

MoCo has had impact fees since the 1990s. Before that, new development provided infrastructure on a proffer system, which was unpredictable and more costly than the impact fees, so young families have been paying for schools for a long time. A lot of things have changed about housing development in MoCo since the 1990s. Most important, new homes available for purchase make up a smaller share of new housing, so of course it’s harder to buy a house here. If you want to help young families, start by figuring out how to make condos and other starter homes make more financial sense for developers than rentals. If your interest is more in helping developers make big profits, cut impact fees and grant property tax abatements.

Don't subsidize development. But don't discourage it, either. The county makes it too hard to build dense housing, which is why we end up with McMansions going up. Trying to keep density the same heavily favors developing high-end homes.

Drop the impact fees, tax abatements, and zoning requiring SFHs, and let local taxes pay for schools.

These suggestions taken altogether would encourage development in places where land is cheapest, so those places that lack schools, transit, and roads. Impact fees (when well designed) impose costs on developers chasing the cheapest land and drive development back into infill areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The subsidies we’re giving developers through tax breaks and straight cash haven’t produced more housing. Our housing production is at its lowest level ever. The developers keep the subsidies as profits. They don’t pass them on to buyers and renters. I don’t want to subsidize the 1 percent. The limited resources that we have for subsidizing housing should go exclusively to income-restricted housing.

MoCo has had impact fees since the 1990s. Before that, new development provided infrastructure on a proffer system, which was unpredictable and more costly than the impact fees, so young families have been paying for schools for a long time. A lot of things have changed about housing development in MoCo since the 1990s. Most important, new homes available for purchase make up a smaller share of new housing, so of course it’s harder to buy a house here. If you want to help young families, start by figuring out how to make condos and other starter homes make more financial sense for developers than rentals. If your interest is more in helping developers make big profits, cut impact fees and grant property tax abatements.

Don't subsidize development. But don't discourage it, either. The county makes it too hard to build dense housing, which is why we end up with McMansions going up. Trying to keep density the same heavily favors developing high-end homes.

Drop the impact fees, tax abatements, and zoning requiring SFHs, and let local taxes pay for schools.

These suggestions taken altogether would encourage development in places where land is cheapest, so those places that lack schools, transit, and roads. Impact fees (when well designed) impose costs on developers chasing the cheapest land and drive development back into infill areas.

In practice, they do the opposite in Montgomery County, due to the NIMBYs downcounty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

878 last year.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

878 last year.

No

Yes. There are only 878 students enrolled in virtual academy. We can debate the merits of the program but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

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

“Looking at the grand totals for each of the past 3 school years, you can see that it went from 2629 (2021-2022) to 1565 (2022-2023) and then dropped again to just 878 for the current 2023-2024 school year.

This represents a 40.4% drop from 2021/2022 to 2022/2023 and a 43.9% drop from 2022/2023 to 2023/2024 and a 66.6% reduction from 2021/2022 to 2023/2024.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

878 last year.

No

Yes. There are only 878 students enrolled in virtual academy. We can debate the merits of the program but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

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

“Looking at the grand totals for each of the past 3 school years, you can see that it went from 2629 (2021-2022) to 1565 (2022-2023) and then dropped again to just 878 for the current 2023-2024 school year.

This represents a 40.4% drop from 2021/2022 to 2022/2023 and a 43.9% drop from 2022/2023 to 2023/2024 and a 66.6% reduction from 2021/2022 to 2023/2024.”

That said results were not reported for schools that has less than ten kids. So, lots not included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

And, how is it harmful? Clearly it's working for a lot of students and families.

How many kids are still in the virtual academy?

878 last year.

No

Yes. There are only 878 students enrolled in virtual academy. We can debate the merits of the program but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

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

“Looking at the grand totals for each of the past 3 school years, you can see that it went from 2629 (2021-2022) to 1565 (2022-2023) and then dropped again to just 878 for the current 2023-2024 school year.

This represents a 40.4% drop from 2021/2022 to 2022/2023 and a 43.9% drop from 2022/2023 to 2023/2024 and a 66.6% reduction from 2021/2022 to 2023/2024.”

That said results were not reported for schools that has less than ten kids. So, lots not included.

Not exactly. If you look at the chart, you can see that the school by school numbers are not reported, but the total is correct for the entire district.