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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

It sounds like a different school would better fit your objectives. Maybe you can get the Turpins to teach virtually from their prison cells.

I feel sorry for your kids that they have a parent with this nasty attitude and don't care that maybe it is working for some students. Why do you even care? What is your agenda? It has zero impacts on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

It sounds like a different school would better fit your objectives. Maybe you can get the Turpins to teach virtually from their prison cells.

I feel sorry for your kids that they have a parent with this nasty attitude and don't care that maybe it is working for some students. Why do you even care? What is your agenda? It has zero impacts on you.

Of course it does. Budgets are zero-sum. Each dollar spent on VA is a dollar not going to more effective programs and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn't make any sense, though. The report says that for MAP-M only about 11% of kids opted out of the test. So, of the 89% of MVA kids who did take the tests, there were statistically significant (in some cases very significant) differences for K-5 kids in particular.

So, unless the missing 11% is for some reason also the highest scoring 11%, the numbers still show that MVA isn't working for K-5, at least in terms of attendance and mastery of core academic subjects. There's no reason to believe that the 89% who did take the test is not statistically representative of the broader group and in fact much more reason to believe that the 11% who didn't test are more likely to be lower scorers than higher scorers.

Stop bringing up facts and data in response to the fever dream that the virtual academy is a worthwhile program

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

.

DP and I do have empathy at the potential disruption to your families - but did you really not realize this was a pandemic program? There was never long term funding allocated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

If a good virtual program is your top priority, why wait? There are far better options out there than what MCPS cobbled together. If you’re not tethered to MoCo for other reasons, that is. Tons of people move for better schools, this isn’t any different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn't make any sense, though. The report says that for MAP-M only about 11% of kids opted out of the test. So, of the 89% of MVA kids who did take the tests, there were statistically significant (in some cases very significant) differences for K-5 kids in particular.

So, unless the missing 11% is for some reason also the highest scoring 11%, the numbers still show that MVA isn't working for K-5, at least in terms of attendance and mastery of core academic subjects. There's no reason to believe that the 89% who did take the test is not statistically representative of the broader group and in fact much more reason to believe that the 11% who didn't test are more likely to be lower scorers than higher scorers.

Stop bringing up facts and data in response to the fever dream that the virtual academy is a worthwhile program

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

All together maybe, but I don't know many Middle Schools with 250 students like the virtual middle school.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the trolls are strong in this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn't make any sense, though. The report says that for MAP-M only about 11% of kids opted out of the test. So, of the 89% of MVA kids who did take the tests, there were statistically significant (in some cases very significant) differences for K-5 kids in particular.

So, unless the missing 11% is for some reason also the highest scoring 11%, the numbers still show that MVA isn't working for K-5, at least in terms of attendance and mastery of core academic subjects. There's no reason to believe that the 89% who did take the test is not statistically representative of the broader group and in fact much more reason to believe that the 11% who didn't test are more likely to be lower scorers than higher scorers.

Stop bringing up facts and data in response to the fever dream that the virtual academy is a worthwhile program

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

Naw. If MCPS decided to build a new experimental school a few years ago and I opted to roll the dice to attend, I wouldn’t be up in arms if attendance dropped 40% two years in a row and the system started asking whether it’s wise to keep the school open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the trolls are strong in this thread! :shock:

Right! The entitlement is strong too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn't make any sense, though. The report says that for MAP-M only about 11% of kids opted out of the test. So, of the 89% of MVA kids who did take the tests, there were statistically significant (in some cases very significant) differences for K-5 kids in particular.

So, unless the missing 11% is for some reason also the highest scoring 11%, the numbers still show that MVA isn't working for K-5, at least in terms of attendance and mastery of core academic subjects. There's no reason to believe that the 89% who did take the test is not statistically representative of the broader group and in fact much more reason to believe that the 11% who didn't test are more likely to be lower scorers than higher scorers.

Stop bringing up facts and data in response to the fever dream that the virtual academy is a worthwhile program

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

All together maybe, but I don't know many Middle Schools with 250 students like the virtual middle school.

Poole Middle only has 432. Should that be closed too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn't make any sense, though. The report says that for MAP-M only about 11% of kids opted out of the test. So, of the 89% of MVA kids who did take the tests, there were statistically significant (in some cases very significant) differences for K-5 kids in particular.

So, unless the missing 11% is for some reason also the highest scoring 11%, the numbers still show that MVA isn't working for K-5, at least in terms of attendance and mastery of core academic subjects. There's no reason to believe that the 89% who did take the test is not statistically representative of the broader group and in fact much more reason to believe that the 11% who didn't test are more likely to be lower scorers than higher scorers.

Stop bringing up facts and data in response to the fever dream that the virtual academy is a worthwhile program

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

Naw. If MCPS decided to build a new experimental school a few years ago and I opted to roll the dice to attend, I wouldn’t be up in arms if attendance dropped 40% two years in a row and the system started asking whether it’s wise to keep the school open.

Better solution. Let’s shut down your child’s school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

It sounds like a different school would better fit your objectives. Maybe you can get the Turpins to teach virtually from their prison cells.

I feel sorry for your kids that they have a parent with this nasty attitude and don't care that maybe it is working for some students. Why do you even care? What is your agenda? It has zero impacts on you.

Of course it does. Budgets are zero-sum. Each dollar spent on VA is a dollar not going to more effective programs and resources.

The cost is minimal compared to many other wasteful things mcps does. It has. Sri impact on you.

[Anonymous]

MAP is the only test that is allowed to be taken virtually. All other standardized tests have to be taken in person. Many opted out of those because the home schools all test on different days and it was very disruptive to their academic schedule as they missed VA classes to take the test and they usually were forced to sit in an empty room all by themselves all day. I wish some of you would allow a conversation to occur instead of picking up on one tiny nuance to justify your hate of a program that benefits students. Many students LOVE being home and learning. It would help if you asked a few. Even though the VA numbers are shrinking (mainly because of limited classes at the moment and home schools refusing to keep up their end of the bargain) it's still as large as some stand-alone elementary and middle schools here in the county. Could you imagine if we were talking about your child's school or magnet program shutting down? You all would be up in arms here. Try to have some empathy folks. I know you have it in you.

MAP is also the test that the evaluators used to look at how MVA students were making progress compared to their peers attending in-person school.

"Students attending Virtual Academy in Grades 3, 4, and 5 were significantly less likely than their inperson peers to meet their projected growth in reading in Spring 2022.

Within student service groups, MVA students receiving FARMS were significantly less likely than their inperson peers to meet their projected growth in reading in Spring 2022, but EMLs did not differ between the two groups. Among Asian, Black or African American, White, and Hispanic/Latino students, MVA students were significantly less likely to meet projected reading growth compared with their inperson peers."

The other item that really stands out is chronic absences. Overall, absences in MS and HS were similar to in-person counterparts, but chronic absences among MVA kids were alarmingly high in the elementary grades in particular. Almost a quarter of MVA kids in 2nd - 5th grades were chronically absent. That's a shocking figure. If this were about mental or physical health, you'd expect the figures to be static across grades or even higher for MS and HS. The numbers being so high among the youngest kids suggests something else may be at play, either families enrolling in MVA to facilitate Disney trips in the off-season, or more nefarious motivations such as removing kids from the line of view of mandatory reporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

It sounds like a different school would better fit your objectives. Maybe you can get the Turpins to teach virtually from their prison cells.

I feel sorry for your kids that they have a parent with this nasty attitude and don't care that maybe it is working for some students. Why do you even care? What is your agenda? It has zero impacts on you.

Of course it does. Budgets are zero-sum. Each dollar spent on VA is a dollar not going to more effective programs and resources.

The cost is minimal compared to many other wasteful things mcps does. It has. Sri impact on you.

It's an ongoing program (for now) that costs millions of dollars a year to operate. Everyone here seems to acknowledge that it can't go on in its current form, so some people are proposing that we expand it in ways that will make even more expensive. Of course there's a budget impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if they could use VA to supplement options at home school, like offer a broader range of languages and let kids at regular HS take a virtual class. There are ways it could be good and have more use, but probably not the way it’s being done. For younger kids, they should probably just improve the existing program for chronically ill children.

This was the plan originally but not funded. The younger kids program changed last year to live teaching from this surveys asynchronous. So, why aren’t they showing last years data with the school changes?

The report says that only social studies and science were asynchronous, but the other subjects (including English and math) were synchronous and delivered much the same as in-person instruction. It's not GREAT that those subjects were asynchronous, but it also does not account for the lagging test scores.

As for why data from this year or last year isn't reflected, these sorts of evaluations don't take place every year. In terms of methodology, it's common to check in on initiatives every 3 years or so, allowing evaluator time to be spread across pilot projects.

The live teaching was not full teaching in those subjects like it is now so to use the first year as your data point when the school was not adequately given enough teachers is an unfair representation of the school. And, they don’t break down medically fragile kids, special need kids and many other factors. The board or any admin have come to meetings and talked to families on their experiences or needs and wants and is just throwing the school under the bus because they failed to manage the budget due to their poor decisions.

Sone of us will leave mcps if they get rid of the program, but maybe that’s what they want.

It sounds like a different school would better fit your objectives. Maybe you can get the Turpins to teach virtually from their prison cells.

I feel sorry for your kids that they have a parent with this nasty attitude and don't care that maybe it is working for some students. Why do you even care? What is your agenda? It has zero impacts on you.

Of course it does. Budgets are zero-sum. Each dollar spent on VA is a dollar not going to more effective programs and resources.

The cost is minimal compared to many other wasteful things mcps does. It has. Sri impact on you.

It's an ongoing program (for now) that costs millions of dollars a year to operate. Everyone here seems to acknowledge that it can't go on in its current form, so some people are proposing that we expand it in ways that will make even more expensive. Of course there's a budget impact.

Yes, it's almost as expensive as what they spent on bocce equipment for PE.

[Anonymous]

Did they analyze where VA students would be sitting physically/mock up an update to the CIP projections vs capacity table?