Virtual Academy students lagging behind in person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

It's only inferior when lazy parents fail to monitor or supervise young children; otherwise, it's amazing.

So if public school isn't working for your family and VA phases out, pony up and pay for an online program, just like many do for private. There are many options out there and I don't know why you think taxpayers should continue to subsidize your preferred schooling method.

I don't know why you think taxpayers should continue to subsidize your preferred schooling method. I prefer my kids to be in virtual school but I don’t start complaining about more money going to in person. Also the VA is probably benefiting your kids. There is one less kid a counselor has to mange. One less essay a teacher has to grade. One less email a teacher has to send wondering why a kid is not showing up to class. There are many services that you don’t use but they benefit you.

Interesting take- we know a family that was in virtual until this year and they said the class sizes in VA were pretty small- so a higher staff to kid ratio than their homeschool. Is that your experience as well? Might be too expensive for MCPS to run long-term with a drop in demand.

FWIW, in person public school is the defacto model in the US. As others have suggested, those who wish for something else are free to pay for it. Or you could move to another state that does offer virtual. It’s not like MCPS is the end all be all. You have choices, use them.

The blogger posted the numbers and I forget how much, but it was about $3K vs. the how much? It's far cheaper to run virtual classes than in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

No, the problem is that it is completely developmentally inappropriate for young children to be staring at a screen like that all day long. Don't take my word for it, ask a developmental pediatrician. That's awesome that it worked for your kids (really! I am happy for you!) but that you would blame others experience on lazy parents is unbelievable.

A developmental pediatrician is already focusing on kids with significant challenges. Of course they are going to have a patients who struggle in virtual. However, those kids struggle in person as well.

This is a silly comment because you need a significant issue to see a developmental ped and they aren't worried about if the child is in virtual or in person, they are worried about far greater things.

One of mine is back in person and they are constantly on screens, on their phone at school (which didn't happen in virtual) and teachers are playing videos (Christmas ones which is gross when not everyone celebrates Christmas) the past few days. That's better? You clearly have no experience with this school and maybe you should sit in on a few classes before you pass judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

How dare those parents work to feed their families! Who needs housing anyway?

And yet we all seem to manage caring for our kids unlike you.

Congratulations on being a single income family or having complete schedule autonomy in your job so you can work around your kids educational schedule. You do realize you were in the complete statistical minority in United States

Or, maybe you should consider your family schedule to be home with your kids or hire a nanny to raise your kids since you are struggling so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

Thanks for your opinion. However, not all kids are happy or want to go to in person. Sometimes the family over personal situation doesn't allow it. Some kids do better virtual. Why do you care if its offered?

I think we should all care if a specific methodology is producing worse outcomes than the traditional model. We live in a society, and in a society we should care whether young people are receiving an appropriate education. The data shows that the most vulnerable learners (EML and/or FARMS) are doing much worse in the VA model, but also that kids who belong to groups that statistically do very well also lag behind their peers.

If we look at the VA model like a pilot, we can see that it is underperforming. Now, MCPS can make some choices here. They can tweak the model in hopes of producing a better VA outcome or they can decide that this particular experiment is not working.

Also, if you are the parent of a typically developing kid who is thriving in VA, and you had your child sit out the standard MAP testing that would have shown whether they are meeting their grade-level targets, you are part of the problem. This was never a permanent institution, and everyone needed to take it seriously and try to demonstrate that it was working.

We don't have that data for the MVA so you are speaking without really knowing and you need to stop throwing FARMS and EML families under the bus for your talking points acting like they aren't capable of making good decisions and only you are.

You are so clueless about all this and keep rambling. MAP can be done online but they are not a true indicator as many kids come MS and HS blow off the tests as they are meaningless. Once you hit MS you get placed on a math track and stay there. So, your MAP scores are not relevant. It's every other test that requires you to be in person and many families skipped those, like us.

And, they are not looking at actual school/child data. Kids should be measured with their peers from their home schools, not all schools since not all schools have the same opportunities.

That data in enrollment is not correct. If you look at the bottom, it clearly states that schools with fewer than 10 students were not included in those numbers. I couldn't figure out why mine weren't listed. But, that blogger or who ever she is wasn't posting that fact or reading the numbers accurately.

Even so, why do you care? It's cheaper for MCPS, it reduces in person class sizes, and gives parents choice.

You want choice - you choose in person. Maybe we should take away your choice and make your kids do virtual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

No, the problem is that it is completely developmentally inappropriate for young children to be staring at a screen like that all day long. Don't take my word for it, ask a developmental pediatrician. That's awesome that it worked for your kids (really! I am happy for you!) but that you would blame others experience on lazy parents is unbelievable.

A developmental pediatrician is already focusing on kids with significant challenges. Of course they are going to have a patients who struggle in virtual. However, those kids struggle in person as well.

This is a silly comment because you need a significant issue to see a developmental ped and they aren't worried about if the child is in virtual or in person, they are worried about far greater things.

One of mine is back in person and they are constantly on screens, on their phone at school (which didn't happen in virtual) and teachers are playing videos (Christmas ones which is gross when not everyone celebrates Christmas) the past few days. That's better? You clearly have no experience with this school and maybe you should sit in on a few classes before you pass judgement.

Why are you putting g your kids back in person if virtual was so much better? SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

Thanks for your opinion. However, not all kids are happy or want to go to in person. Sometimes the family over personal situation doesn't allow it. Some kids do better virtual. Why do you care if its offered?

I think we should all care if a specific methodology is producing worse outcomes than the traditional model. We live in a society, and in a society we should care whether young people are receiving an appropriate education. The data shows that the most vulnerable learners (EML and/or FARMS) are doing much worse in the VA model, but also that kids who belong to groups that statistically do very well also lag behind their peers.

If we look at the VA model like a pilot, we can see that it is underperforming. Now, MCPS can make some choices here. They can tweak the model in hopes of producing a better VA outcome or they can decide that this particular experiment is not working.

Also, if you are the parent of a typically developing kid who is thriving in VA, and you had your child sit out the standard MAP testing that would have shown whether they are meeting their grade-level targets, you are part of the problem. This was never a permanent institution, and everyone needed to take it seriously and try to demonstrate that it was working.

We don't have that data for the MVA so you are speaking without really knowing and you need to stop throwing FARMS and EML families under the bus for your talking points acting like they aren't capable of making good decisions and only you are.

You are so clueless about all this and keep rambling. MAP can be done online but they are not a true indicator as many kids come MS and HS blow off the tests as they are meaningless. Once you hit MS you get placed on a math track and stay there. So, your MAP scores are not relevant. It's every other test that requires you to be in person and many families skipped those, like us.

And, they are not looking at actual school/child data. Kids should be measured with their peers from their home schools, not all schools since not all schools have the same opportunities.

That data in enrollment is not correct. If you look at the bottom, it clearly states that schools with fewer than 10 students were not included in those numbers. I couldn't figure out why mine weren't listed. But, that blogger or who ever she is wasn't posting that fact or reading the numbers accurately.

Even so, why do you care? It's cheaper for MCPS, it reduces in person class sizes, and gives parents choice.

You want choice - you choose in person. Maybe we should take away your choice and make your kids do virtual.

Who’s “we”? Neither MCPS or MD in general seem that enthusiastic about virtual programs, yet you’re focused on making empty threats to DCUM posters who don’t share your opinion. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

Thanks for your opinion. However, not all kids are happy or want to go to in person. Sometimes the family over personal situation doesn't allow it. Some kids do better virtual. Why do you care if its offered?

I think we should all care if a specific methodology is producing worse outcomes than the traditional model. We live in a society, and in a society we should care whether young people are receiving an appropriate education. The data shows that the most vulnerable learners (EML and/or FARMS) are doing much worse in the VA model, but also that kids who belong to groups that statistically do very well also lag behind their peers.

If we look at the VA model like a pilot, we can see that it is underperforming. Now, MCPS can make some choices here. They can tweak the model in hopes of producing a better VA outcome or they can decide that this particular experiment is not working.

Also, if you are the parent of a typically developing kid who is thriving in VA, and you had your child sit out the standard MAP testing that would have shown whether they are meeting their grade-level targets, you are part of the problem. This was never a permanent institution, and everyone needed to take it seriously and try to demonstrate that it was working.

We don't have that data for the MVA so you are speaking without really knowing and you need to stop throwing FARMS and EML families under the bus for your talking points acting like they aren't capable of making good decisions and only you are.

You are so clueless about all this and keep rambling. MAP can be done online but they are not a true indicator as many kids come MS and HS blow off the tests as they are meaningless. Once you hit MS you get placed on a math track and stay there. So, your MAP scores are not relevant. It's every other test that requires you to be in person and many families skipped those, like us.

And, they are not looking at actual school/child data. Kids should be measured with their peers from their home schools, not all schools since not all schools have the same opportunities.

That data in enrollment is not correct. If you look at the bottom, it clearly states that schools with fewer than 10 students were not included in those numbers. I couldn't figure out why mine weren't listed. But, that blogger or who ever she is wasn't posting that fact or reading the numbers accurately.

Even so, why do you care? It's cheaper for MCPS, it reduces in person class sizes, and gives parents choice.

You want choice - you choose in person. Maybe we should take away your choice and make your kids do virtual.

So, it's not "throwing EML and FARMS families under the bus" to note that those groups are performing worse than expected in VA, nor to note that those students are particularly vulnerable and likely do not have the resources to supplement outside of school if VA is not working for their children.

Also, while the school-by-school numbers are wrong, the totals are correct. Enrollment has dropped to under 1000 kids, so it makes sense to ask whether diverting teachers and administrators to MVA remains a good use of resources. That's particularly true if, as it appears, the VA kids are not gaining key skills in reading and math at the earliest ages.

I care for the same reason that we should all care. We should care if kids in person are not learning, and we should care if kids in virtual are not learning. At the population level, it seems clear that VA isn't working for a lot of kids. It might work for individual kids, but we can't build an entire system around a tiny fraction while letting others fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

Thanks for your opinion. However, not all kids are happy or want to go to in person. Sometimes the family over personal situation doesn't allow it. Some kids do better virtual. Why do you care if its offered?

It's only an opinion if you're being pedantic.

I suppose the pp could have written it as "students attending virtual academy have worse educational outcomes than those in in-person schools" in order to make it factual.

As for why someone would care, how do you feel about taxpayers funding private schools through vouchers? Why would you care if that's "offered"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We don't have that data for the MVA so you are speaking without really knowing and you need to stop throwing FARMS and EML families under the bus for your talking points acting like they aren't capable of making good decisions and only you are.

You are so clueless about all this and keep rambling. MAP can be done online but they are not a true indicator as many kids come MS and HS blow off the tests as they are meaningless. Once you hit MS you get placed on a math track and stay there. So, your MAP scores are not relevant. It's every other test that requires you to be in person and many families skipped those, like us.

And, they are not looking at actual school/child data. Kids should be measured with their peers from their home schools, not all schools since not all schools have the same opportunities.

That data in enrollment is not correct. If you look at the bottom, it clearly states that schools with fewer than 10 students were not included in those numbers. I couldn't figure out why mine weren't listed. But, that blogger or who ever she is wasn't posting that fact or reading the numbers accurately.

Even so, why do you care? It's cheaper for MCPS, it reduces in person class sizes, and gives parents choice.

You want choice - you choose in person. Maybe we should take away your choice and make your kids do virtual.

Whatever MCPS's goals are, I'm pretty sure that MCPS's goals are NOT

1. spending less money for a worse educational outcome
2. reducing class sizes by putting some kids in a learning environment with a worse educational outcome
3. giving parents the choice of a worse educational outcome

And I'm a person who believes there is a role for a Virtual Academy in MCPS for kids to attend temporarily - for example, for kids with chronic health problems that keep them out of regular school, or for kids who have experienced bullying in their regular schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the in-person only crowd absolutely refuses to see how virtual can benefit some students. Not all students (aka their students), but guess what? In person doesn’t work for all students either. In-person only crowd only considers their children’s needs, so they bash anyone who thinks differently. It’s juvenile and immature, but they want to continue to be selfish. If they spent a second in classrooms across the US right now, they’d see the complete disaster current classroom conditions are. They’d still refuse to listen to any alternatives though because they are stuck on an ideal from when they were kids. The world is changing….. not all students learn in the same environments…time to grow up.

Virtual is simply on balance an inferior form of education even for those kids who can technically get by. Public school districts have zero obligation to offer a learning model that is expensive and has poor results. It only makes sense for kids who actually cannot go to school.

Thanks for your opinion. However, not all kids are happy or want to go to in person. Sometimes the family over personal situation doesn't allow it. Some kids do better virtual. Why do you care if its offered?

DP. I don't think it's a good use of resources at the MCPS level for the numerous reasons already discussed, but I also don't care enough to make my opinion known to MCPS. Seems to be it would be more efficient to offer such a program at the state level like other states do (especially if you're concerned about declining course offerings) and focus on secondary education. But good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

No, the problem is that it is completely developmentally inappropriate for young children to be staring at a screen like that all day long. Don't take my word for it, ask a developmental pediatrician. That's awesome that it worked for your kids (really! I am happy for you!) but that you would blame others experience on lazy parents is unbelievable.

A developmental pediatrician is already focusing on kids with significant challenges. Of course they are going to have a patients who struggle in virtual. However, those kids struggle in person as well.

This is a silly comment because you need a significant issue to see a developmental ped and they aren't worried about if the child is in virtual or in person, they are worried about far greater things.

One of mine is back in person and they are constantly on screens, on their phone at school (which didn't happen in virtual) and teachers are playing videos (Christmas ones which is gross when not everyone celebrates Christmas) the past few days. That's better? You clearly have no experience with this school and maybe you should sit in on a few classes before you pass judgement.

Why are you putting g your kids back in person if virtual was so much better? SMH.

I put one back and the academics were better in most classes because the home school wouldn't allow sports and activities if they were virtual except if they were in person. That was important to them. They are supposed to allow it but don't. For some classes, virtual was far better, for others the classes weren't as good. Some of it is teacher-specific and we had mostly good teachers in virtual. I'm not impressed at all with in-person and the academics in some classes are far weaker. For some kids, both styles work just fine and have their pros and cons. What I prefer about virtual is the flexibility, not getting sick every few weeks, and basics like kids being able to use the bathroom when needed (the in-person school locks the bathrooms - not sure how that is allowed). It's also nice not to get texts constantly about incidents that happen in the school where kids miss half a day being evacuated. It's happened multiple times this year.

It takes a lot of parenting support except for really independent kids. There are a lot of benefits to it and it was far easier when assignments and other things were online so as parents we can monitor and support and see when our kids are struggling and help. With in-person, things may not get graded right away, assignments don't come home so we have no idea what's going on.

The big issue isn't in-person vs. virtual but the curriculum (since both use the same curriculum). Parents need to heavily supplement in elementary school to make sure their kids are on target. We found the curriculum weak before covid so those using covid as an excuse weren't paying attention to what was going on. How schools don't teach grammar, spelling or math facts is bizarre, and why kids are struggling. And, for in-person the lack of discipline and some administrators/teachers (not all as we have a few with clear boundaries and really strong teachers) wanting to be the kid's friends is the other big issue.

It really doesn't matter if you are virtual or in person if you child is engaged and your child has a good teacher/teachers. That is the biggest factor we see in success, even in person. Some teachers go above and beyond and some do the minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

How dare those parents work to feed their families! Who needs housing anyway?

Those kids shouldn’t be left unsupervised at home to fend for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

How dare those parents work to feed their families! Who needs housing anyway?

Those kids shouldn’t be left unsupervised at home to fend for themselves.

Oh I agree. They should have been in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here it is again...parents in this county are so behind the times. Most districts across the country have offered virtual options since the early aughts. The fact MCPS only did in 2020 because of the pandemic is embarrassing. It's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century without complaining because remote instruction didn't work for your kid during the pandemic. It's so absurd.

Just curious- how many of the virtual programs "across the country" are actually offered at the district level? Particularly in pre-pandemic times. Quite often the virtual programs are administered at the state level, which makes sense to me. So this is partly on the state of MD.

DP-I would first say, do your own research before asking others to do it for you. But all of my teaching friends from my program are in various states and it is offered at the district level. So, no. It's not on the state of Maryland at all. It could be implemented district wide as its done in MANY other places. MoCo has a unique set of parents that simply refuse to hear any other alternatives other than "in-person". It is sad because instead of using the money and time to refine a district wide program, people just want to shut it down because of the pandemic. All of the parents who continue to post this article on social media are the same exact parents who were at every single board meeting complaining about virtual. Doesn't take a genius to figure out their agenda. It is quite sad and pathetic.

Lady, well before the pandemic there was research showing that virtual doesn’t even work for college students. Anyone with a single brain cell knows it’s a disaster for children, and yes, we know this because of the pandemic There is an extremely narrow case for it as a stop-gap for sick kids and SN kids who truly cannot be accomodated at their current placement, but it is not a long-term solution.

My kids did great in virtual. I think the problem is mostly with parents who left young children unsupervised and expected better results. The problem isn't virtual but lazy parents.

How dare those parents work to feed their families! Who needs housing anyway?

Those kids shouldn’t be left unsupervised at home to fend for themselves.

Oh I agree. They should have been in school.

They ARE in school. Its sad you simply don't get it and are trying to justify your hate for options for families because you want free child care and think everyone else needs it.

[Anonymous]

Everyone gets it. It was obvious during the pandemic. Selfish parents who ignore their children fared poorly in virtual.