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

[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.

No. Read more closely. The totals are correct. I can’t believe MCPS is spending so much money and effort on a program that serves 900 kids and whose attendance is sinking fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not sure what’s more concerning about that report - the fact that less than 900 kids from k-12 across the entire county participate in the virtual academy program or the fact that the academy is doing a lot worse than regular school in educating kids and catching them up from the pandemic learning loss.

[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.

Wrong additional housing requires roads, infrastructure and schools. They need to pony up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That would be great! Leader in Me was inspirational!!

[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.

Wrong additional housing requires roads, infrastructure and schools. They need to pony up.

That's what your taxes are supposed to pay for. Boomers didn't have impact fees when they bought their first homes. Millennials don't understand how many different ways they're getting screwed over. Making new homes more expensive makes existing homes more expensive, too.

[Anonymous]

Folks really should click through the report on MVA because it doesn't look good, assuming one wants to take an evidence-based approach. At the very least, the VA needs to be revamped to address the issues detailed in the report.

The report is easy to read, and clearly laid out, even if it does seem it took MCPS quite a while to make it public. The biggest takeaway is that MVA is not working at the ES level in particular. Attendance is worse for MVA than in-person school, and testing outcomes are significantly worse.

At the MS and HS levels, chronic absenteeism is about the same as the in-school population, but that itself is alarming given the dismal state of attendance in general.

At best, the data would suggest that MVA is not an appropriate model for K-5.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2023/Virtual%20Academy%20FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. Read more closely. The totals are correct. I can’t believe MCPS is spending so much money and effort on a program that serves 900 kids and whose attendance is sinking fast.

It's MCPS we're talking about here- is it really that surprising that we've left a Jack Smith pet project on life support far too long?

[Anonymous]

Kudos to the board for reevaluating these three programs and having another public hearing to allow the public to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to the board for reevaluating these three programs and having another public hearing to allow the public to weigh in.

+1, though I am shocked to realize MCPS has still been spending anything on Leader in Me, as I thought it was already gone. I'd love to see the board reevaluate a variety of things, but this is a good start. The innovative schools haven't produced the results MCPS was hoping for, and the parents and staff at those schools have expressed their unhappiness as well. I think for year-round school to work it needs to be district wide and there needs to be a lot of community support in the form of camps and childcare during breaks throughout the year.

I think there is potential in the virtual academy, at least for older students, but not in the way it's currently being used. I've seen a few posters saying their school is using it to offer compacted math or another class - I think this is a great use of a virtual platform but don't know that MCPS is really advertising this as an option. I also think it has potential to help kids who have difficulties in traditional schools for a variety of reasons. Our family asked about it as an option for our middle schooler when his special ed placement went from a disaster to unsafe, but MCPS was unwilling to consider it as an interim option while we went through the process for a new placement. There are a LOT of special education students and their families who are in limbo as they wait for spots in other programs and schools to open up, and I would love to see the virtual academy used to help kids like mine, but I realize MCPS doesn't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resident virtual school lover must be losing her mind over the prospect of letting her kids leave her sight.

There's always homeschool!

Oh my... you simply don't get it. Must be nice to be self-absorbed and only care about your needs vs. the needs of others.

My kid also has some needs that public schools can't seem to fill, so we pay for a private school. Maybe you need to find a virtual school platform and pay for it yourself. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for your conveniences.

Virtual public school options existed way before the pandemic, especially in large districts. In a district as large as MCPS, it should definitely continue to be an option. It could potentially grow to help more students for half day schedules, unique electives and night classes. Plenty of other fat to cut from the budget, especially at Hungerford/Gude.

Which ones? Most of the virtual programs I know about are administered at the state level. FL has many large school districts similar to the size of MCPS, but they don't have their own virtual programs. Same with Virginia. Every time someone asks for examples of large district level virtual programs, no one can provide it.

[Anonymous]

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.

Please Google state run virtual public education. Many states offer this so yes access to virtual public education very much is a state issue. States have the ability and the funding control to run this so all Maryland students could have access to a free virtual option. MCPS was shortsighted to try and run their own versus lobby Maryland to run its own as other states already do.

The Virtual Academy in MCPS was funded my ESSR funds. There are no longer ESSR funds since that program has ended. This means MCPS either has to discontinue the programs it ran using ESSR funds or find new funds. To find new funds it must cut other programs. The money that comes from the state per child is not enough to fund virtual academy so it is not a case of simply using the per child funds to run the VA. Also keep in mind the 40million deficit in the employee plan that has to be paid.

MCPS spent poorly and now must make lots of cuts. Hopefully they downsize central office, stop funding one offs — like the museum,— cut programs not enough students use to justify the huge cost like LIM, cut programs that are expensive and do not show results like year round school, and put more money toward paying teachers, paraeducators and other staff who work directly with students a competitive wage to best attract talent. Until MCPS can do the basics they need to stop experimenting with niche costly programs.

Agree with this- that money could have been spent on upgrading school ventilation systems, for example, to make schools safer for everyone. The state should have been taking the lead on a virtual school option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks really should click through the report on MVA because it doesn't look good, assuming one wants to take an evidence-based approach. At the very least, the VA needs to be revamped to address the issues detailed in the report.

The report is easy to read, and clearly laid out, even if it does seem it took MCPS quite a while to make it public. The biggest takeaway is that MVA is not working at the ES level in particular. Attendance is worse for MVA than in-person school, and testing outcomes are significantly worse.

At the MS and HS levels, chronic absenteeism is about the same as the in-school population, but that itself is alarming given the dismal state of attendance in general.

At best, the data would suggest that MVA is not an appropriate model for K-5.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2023/Virtual%20Academy%20FINAL.pdf

Some of t that data is not accurate as many families opted out if testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to the board for reevaluating these three programs and having another public hearing to allow the public to weigh in.

+1, though I am shocked to realize MCPS has still been spending anything on Leader in Me, as I thought it was already gone. I'd love to see the board reevaluate a variety of things, but this is a good start. The innovative schools haven't produced the results MCPS was hoping for, and the parents and staff at those schools have expressed their unhappiness as well. I think for year-round school to work it needs to be district wide and there needs to be a lot of community support in the form of camps and childcare during breaks throughout the year.

I think there is potential in the virtual academy, at least for older students, but not in the way it's currently being used. I've seen a few posters saying their school is using it to offer compacted math or another class - I think this is a great use of a virtual platform but don't know that MCPS is really advertising this as an option. I also think it has potential to help kids who have difficulties in traditional schools for a variety of reasons. Our family asked about it as an option for our middle schooler when his special ed placement went from a disaster to unsafe, but MCPS was unwilling to consider it as an interim option while we went through the process for a new placement. There are a LOT of special education students and their families who are in limbo as they wait for spots in other programs and schools to open up, and I would love to see the virtual academy used to help kids like mine, but I realize MCPS doesn't care.

It’s not meant as an interim program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks really should click through the report on MVA because it doesn't look good, assuming one wants to take an evidence-based approach. At the very least, the VA needs to be revamped to address the issues detailed in the report.

The report is easy to read, and clearly laid out, even if it does seem it took MCPS quite a while to make it public. The biggest takeaway is that MVA is not working at the ES level in particular. Attendance is worse for MVA than in-person school, and testing outcomes are significantly worse.

At the MS and HS levels, chronic absenteeism is about the same as the in-school population, but that itself is alarming given the dismal state of attendance in general.

At best, the data would suggest that MVA is not an appropriate model for K-5.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2023/Virtual%20Academy%20FINAL.pdf

We had issues with attendance when our child was there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resident virtual school lover must be losing her mind over the prospect of letting her kids leave her sight.

There's always homeschool!

Oh my... you simply don't get it. Must be nice to be self-absorbed and only care about your needs vs. the needs of others.

My kid also has some needs that public schools can't seem to fill, so we pay for a private school. Maybe you need to find a virtual school platform and pay for it yourself. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for your conveniences.

Virtual public school options existed way before the pandemic, especially in large districts. In a district as large as MCPS, it should definitely continue to be an option. It could potentially grow to help more students for half day schedules, unique electives and night classes. Plenty of other fat to cut from the budget, especially at Hungerford/Gude.

Which ones? Most of the virtual programs I know about are administered at the state level. FL has many large school districts similar to the size of MCPS, but they don't have their own virtual programs. Same with Virginia. Every time someone asks for examples of large district level virtual programs, no one can provide it.

Let it go. The state is not going to run it. Why do you keep pushing that?