APS VPL is a dumpster fire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we audit APS?

When does everyone get a report on what went wrong here?

There were 0 questions from the board about the "how" this occurred the other night (I'm assuming the board asked such questions in 1 on 1 private meetings, outside of open records laws). They allocated tons of federal dollars to this virtual program, which has been a disaster to so many virtual families. The public deserves an answer.

[Anonymous]

How's VPL going these days? Is everyone in a class by now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question - would those who are supporting APS VPL today also support virtual education instead of building a 4th HS? Because that's the real reason VPL was created.

Ah yes, all of those 3rd grade high schoolers, not taking up seats in person. You’ve solved the mystery!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Exactly. The MS and HS kids are eligible for the vaccine and you can bet that the kids doing virtual who are eligible for the vaccine are 100% vaccinated. If you're vaccinated and still don't think it's safe to go to school, then you and your family need mental help for paranoia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Parent of early ES VLP kids here. The science shows kids need to be in school. The science also shows that my kids are at risk of serious complications if they get COVID so we're in VLP until they get vaccinated. I agree my kids are getting an inferior education than they would be if they were in person. I wish there wasn't a pandemic and my kids could be in school. From what I heard anecdotally from friends and family doing virtual or hybrid in other districts around the country, my kids' inferior virtual education last year was still superior to the virtual education many other kids had. So THANK YOU APS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

The best part of this “follow the science” chant is that not a single APE person has ever demonstrated they should have been trusted in elementary science class with that gentleman’s C they got. Remember the clown who posted a chart that started at 25,000 and went up and down in the range to 26,000, which looked like a huge drop because THE BASELINE WAS 25,000? LOL. And here we are with some gish-galloping over extreme immunodeficiency. If you knew your head from a hole in the ground, you’d know that above clinical immunodeficiency, there are some immune factors that typically are triple in healthy individuals. But, a doctor with their livelihood on the line isn’t going to take a chance, and isn’t going to be “held accountable,” so their behavioral / systematic outcome was foreordained. And you call that right. Honk, honk.

None of that actually matters because this is just an echo chamber for some ALEC funded anti-education zealots, harnessing some useful idiots and their easily led outrage. But, APE nature being what it is, rather than follow the money, you’ll all double down and insist you want what’s best for the kids. Which coincidentally required no research nor work by you.

Amazing.

[Anonymous]

The saddest part of this thread is all the people who moved to Arlington for its schools and now are spending their time trying to recreate the Texas, Florida, and Kansases they escaped.

“After decades of not watering plants, they all died. Now I’m angry that people in my new town are wasting money watering plants and I want to put a stop to it!”

It’s a scientific mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

The best part of this “follow the science” chant is that not a single APE person has ever demonstrated they should have been trusted in elementary science class with that gentleman’s C they got. Remember the clown who posted a chart that started at 25,000 and went up and down in the range to 26,000, which looked like a huge drop because THE BASELINE WAS 25,000? LOL. And here we are with some gish-galloping over extreme immunodeficiency. If you knew your head from a hole in the ground, you’d know that above clinical immunodeficiency, there are some immune factors that typically are triple in healthy individuals. But, a doctor with their livelihood on the line isn’t going to take a chance, and isn’t going to be “held accountable,” so their behavioral / systematic outcome was foreordained. And you call that right. Honk, honk.

None of that actually matters because this is just an echo chamber for some ALEC funded anti-education zealots, harnessing some useful idiots and their easily led outrage. But, APE nature being what it is, rather than follow the money, you’ll all double down and insist you want what’s best for the kids. Which coincidentally required no research nor work by you.

Amazing.

The chart was primarily showing % decline, with numbers on the right hand side. It is a huge enrollment drop. We're now at 11.5% less than projected enrollment because APS listened to the crowd who didn't want to follow the science last year and wanted schools closed. These are the same people who hiding behind the virtual program this year as all immunocompromised kids when we know it's probably 90%+ kids whose parents don't follow the science..

I don't think anyone is against a virtual program for kids who actually need it. See Fairfax's program that is 0.2% enrollment. That would be the equivalent of 54 kids in APS.

"ALEC funded anti-education zealots, harnessing some useful idiots" --> conspiracy theorist there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The saddest part of this thread is all the people who moved to Arlington for its schools and now are spending their time trying to recreate the Texas, Florida, and Kansases they escaped.

“After decades of not watering plants, they all died. Now I’m angry that people in my new town are wasting money watering plants and I want to put a stop to it!”

It’s a scientific mystery.

No, we didn't want APS wasting money on a virtual program for kids that don't need it, similar to other liberal places like New York City, Chicago and Fairfax County. There's nothing worse for equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Parent of early ES VLP kids here. The science shows kids need to be in school. The science also shows that my kids are at risk of serious complications if they get COVID so we're in VLP until they get vaccinated. I agree my kids are getting an inferior education than they would be if they were in person. I wish there wasn't a pandemic and my kids could be in school. From what I heard anecdotally from friends and family doing virtual or hybrid in other districts around the country, my kids' inferior virtual education last year was still superior to the virtual education many other kids had. So THANK YOU APS!

Glad your kids got a great virtual education last year. Most APS' kids got a horrendous one and they wanted to be in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Parent of early ES VLP kids here. The science shows kids need to be in school. The science also shows that my kids are at risk of serious complications if they get COVID so we're in VLP until they get vaccinated. I agree my kids are getting an inferior education than they would be if they were in person. I wish there wasn't a pandemic and my kids could be in school. From what I heard anecdotally from friends and family doing virtual or hybrid in other districts around the country, my kids' inferior virtual education last year was still superior to the virtual education many other kids had. So THANK YOU APS!

The poster actually agreed APS should have provided a virtual program to your children with possible serious complications from COVID, assuming you could have a doctor certify that, along with all of the probable 0.2% of the student body that could show certified medical reasons. Most people's beef is with the 2.4% of the student body who is enrolled in the virtual program who doesn't have a certified medical reason to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Parent of early ES VLP kids here. The science shows kids need to be in school. The science also shows that my kids are at risk of serious complications if they get COVID so we're in VLP until they get vaccinated. I agree my kids are getting an inferior education than they would be if they were in person. I wish there wasn't a pandemic and my kids could be in school. From what I heard anecdotally from friends and family doing virtual or hybrid in other districts around the country, my kids' inferior virtual education last year was still superior to the virtual education many other kids had. So THANK YOU APS!

You just thanked APS for a sub-par education ???

Talk about low expectations for your child’s education

It’s parents like you that make the SB and Duran feel good at being bad at their jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think APS has accurate data on the % of medically vulnerable kids, so I don't think the numbers people are citing here are accurate. Maybe people are assuming SPED = medically vulnerable? My kids are medically at risk. When we signed up for VLP last Spring I remember a question about why we were choosing VLP. I could only choose one even though more than one reason applied to us. I don't remember which one I chose.

APS doesn't. If you look at Fairfax, they have a virtual enrollment of 0.2% of its student body in its medical-only virtual program. APS has a 2.7% virtual enrollment in its open virtual program.

Fairfax worded the requirement in a way doctors were concerned anything less than boy-in-a-bubble getting a note might be viewed as malpractice. If this was a good faith argument from a numerically literate person, it would have acknowledged a large number of factors making any conclusions and comparisons foolish.

If.

Fairfax did it absolutely correct. People who are afraid to put their kids in school are not following the science (the science has been 100% clear for a year now). Kids need to be in school and, as the data has shown, they are getting a proven inferior form of education online.

If they want to do online school, the state has 2 statewide online schools or they can homeschool their kids.

Parent of early ES VLP kids here. The science shows kids need to be in school. The science also shows that my kids are at risk of serious complications if they get COVID so we're in VLP until they get vaccinated. I agree my kids are getting an inferior education than they would be if they were in person. I wish there wasn't a pandemic and my kids could be in school. From what I heard anecdotally from friends and family doing virtual or hybrid in other districts around the country, my kids' inferior virtual education last year was still superior to the virtual education many other kids had. So THANK YOU APS!

The poster actually agreed APS should have provided a virtual program to your children with possible serious complications from COVID, assuming you could have a doctor certify that, along with all of the probable 0.2% of the student body that could show certified medical reasons. Most people's beef is with the 2.4% of the student body who is enrolled in the virtual program who doesn't have a certified medical reason to be there.

That ship has sailed now - 0 questions by the school board publicly when it was decided to create the program so who knows what the cost-benefits of such a program were, what APS thought about it, what the school board thought about it. No one knows as the school board is run like the CCP, with everything decided behind the scenes and school board meetings as theater.

APS should be focusing on fixing the problems ASAP.

Has there been any discussion about how all of these problems occurred? I did not see any at the school board meeting. All comments from very concerned school board members, as if the staffing problems arose out of nowhere. But no explanation about how this train wreck was allowed by APS and the school board to occur.