MVA closed: switch to private virtual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

NP but this is easy to answer. Because what works for some adult learners is not the same as what will work for kids, especially those in the primary years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

Are you joking? It's the easiest path for them to make more money.

And they hardly count as advanced degrees. No one outside of education is going to give much value to them. And even in education they're just used to check a box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

Nancy, is that you? It makes sense that the same teachers looking for an easy degree program would want an easy teaching job, working from home and assigning asynchronous work whenever they don't feel like teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

Don't forget about the teachers that simply don't want to leave their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

NP but this is easy to answer. Because what works for some adult learners is not the same as what will work for kids, especially those in the primary years.

Virtual can work well for students, especially with involved parents. This is politics, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

The ANTI-MVA are clueless as to what goes on and selfish and self serving. So, in person works for your two kids, but not others, so maybe we should drop your child's school instead which costs away more and send them virtual.

[Anonymous]

If you don't agree with the MVA, you won, its closed so move on. OP was asking about alternatives. Help or get off the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

The ANTI-MVA are clueless as to what goes on and selfish and self serving. So, in person works for your two kids, but not others, so maybe we should drop your child's school instead which costs away more and send them virtual.

Yeah, totally. Big winner of an argument there. I hope you use this in your advocacy with the BOE and other decision makers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

The ANTI-MVA are clueless as to what goes on and selfish and self serving. So, in person works for your two kids, but not others, so maybe we should drop your child's school instead which costs away more and send them virtual.

Yeah, totally. Big winner of an argument there. I hope you use this in your advocacy with the BOE and other decision makers.

What is your problem? Move on. OP asked a question, answer it or start your own post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

NP but this is easy to answer. Because what works for some adult learners is not the same as what will work for kids, especially those in the primary years.

Virtual can work well for students, especially with involved parents. This is politics, nothing more.

It can work in some circumstances, but in-person works better for most. Public schools can't afford to offer special programs for niche groups when in-person can work well for nearly everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't agree with the MVA, you won, its closed so move on. OP was asking about alternatives. Help or get off the thread.

About private schools in the MCPS forum. Should MoCo families start posting about MCPS in the FCPS forum now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

They are- they just didn’t work for YOU. Virtual education has been around since the early 2000s. Read a book. Evolve like the rest of the country has.

Look around. The vast majority of kids go to school because they work better for the vast majority of kids. If you want something special, either because you're afraid of an endemic illness or because you don't want your kids exposed to "fashion," then you're going to need to look beyond public schools at your own cost.

Nah, most public schools offer virtual.

Nah, not true. Sure, maybe for snow days and pandemics, but a fulsome virtual program that costs millions so that parents of sheltered kids and the shy ones can feel good? Nah. And especially nah in MCPS at this point.

Do your own research, smpotatoes. You’ll find the majority of school districts in the country offer virtual.

I'm not the PP, but I did my own research. Here's what I found - the MCPS experience is not unique. First of all, enrollment in virtual schools exploded during the pandemic, only to fall once brick-and-mortar schools reopened:

"Between 2019-20 (pre-pandemic) and 2020-21, enrollment in full-time virtual schools nearly
doubled, increasing from 332,379 students to 643,930 a year later. In the following year
(between 2020-21 and 2021-22), total enrollments in full-time virtual schools declined by
65,000 students.

https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023

MCPS is also similar to national norms in that kids enrolled in virtual schools underperformed compared to their peers in traditional schools.

"Research over the past dozen years, particularly
the national reports released by NEPC, has verified that the performance of full-time virtual
schools lags far behind, and the results are consistent from year to year with only occasional
signs of small improvements. The findings in this report confirm what has long been appar-
ent; the performance of full-time virtual schools is dramatically subpar"

"Virtual schools in general perform poorly, state vir-
tual school policies remain inadequate, and little if any research supports the claims being
made for virtual education. And yet virtual schools continue to spread. No doubt this is in
large part because: The policy environment remains, if not friendly, then indifferent; over-
sight is lax; and millions of dollars from profit-seeking investors promote the enterprise"

From the same study, I learned that there are more than 13,000 public school districts in the United States but only 484 of those districts have full-time virtual options.

lol your “facts” are just wrong.

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/201920_Virtual_Schools_table_3.asp
T

Took less than a second to find the real information but I’m glad you felt the need to spend time writing it up.

Are you under the impression your link supports your position? It doesn't. It lines up pretty closely with what the PP said, although "number of online schools" is not the same thing as "number of public school districts offering online programs".

The first PP was counting districts, the second PP was counting unique schools, most of which are either charter or for-profit or both. Note that the second PP doesn't address the pervasive performance issues at all.

Yes. The pro MVA folks on here generally are not good with data and facts. More of a “it works for my 2 kids so of course we should drop $5million on the district wide program” kind of crowd.

The ANTI-MVA are clueless as to what goes on and selfish and self serving. So, in person works for your two kids, but not others, so maybe we should drop your child's school instead which costs away more and send them virtual.

With brilliant arguments like that, how could the BoE possibility have voted to close MVA instead of neighborhood schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aa county kept the virtual academy and it’s been a good fit for many families. I’m not dilute if there is a waitlist though, and you have to live in county

There you go, OP- move to AA County.

lol…. You’re proud Mcps hasn’t joined the 21st century? We’re so far beyond the times it’s actually embarrassing.

Virtual schools aren't the future- they're the past. We learned during the pandemic they don't work.

LOL
Then why are so many MCPS teachers and staff getting virtual advanced degrees?

NP but this is easy to answer. Because what works for some adult learners is not the same as what will work for kids, especially those in the primary years.

Virtual can work well for students, especially with involved parents. This is politics, nothing more.

Politics, as in putting the needs of 159,000 students before the anxiety of 800 parents.