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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait they are thinking of bringing Leader in Me back?!

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

How is the Virtual Academy actively harmful?

I would think it would be tremendously valuable for students who are homebound for extended periods. If a child’s medical condition keeps them from attending school for a while, we shouldn’t expect the family to have to homeschool on top of everything else.

It seems like it provides useful differention to some students as PPs have described.

If it is somehow harmful, can the content be modified while maintaining the flexibility the format offers?

It's harmful the same way a charter school is harmful. It pulls money away from everything else.

Right now the school is getting the funding for a virtual student and not providing any services. Almost all of the schools are overcrowded so this reduces overcrowding and the funding loss to each school would be minimal if they stop paying that school for the slot.

And, maybe if the schools were better able to meet all students needs, there wouldn't be a need for virtual for some families but that isn't the case.

dp.. this is impossible realistically. MCPS doesn't have an infinite budget.

Mcps is paying the home schools the funding for the students in virtual. The simple solution is to pull that money as the home schools are not educating the students and give that money to virtual. Done.

This is *exactly* the charter school model - bleed public schools dry to service the needs of a more privileged group. In the case of charters, it's parents who can navigate the application process. For VA, it's families with one parent at home all day. In either case, stealing from the highest needs groups to subsidize the lowest needs (UMC families with a SAH parent) is not how we want to do business in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder if there would be much cost savings closing the virtual academy. After all, there is no physical building, or anything associated with that. The technology is already baked in, in that all MCPS students have access to cheomebooks and zoom. It may actually be cheaper, in some ways.

The biggest cost center in public education is the teachers, which makes sense because education is about knowledge transfer. Virtual Academy "classes" are miniscule, which means you have a high cost center (teachers) servicing a very small number of kids. If you reintegrate those teachers into in-person classrooms, it benefits all of MCPS rather than a rarefied few.

[Anonymous]

Those grade level teachers are not all likely to come back, in-person, and the numbers are miniscule, something like eighty. That wouldn't even move a needle in a district of over two hundred schools, assuming that all did decide to go to physical schools. So you're probably talking a few dozen, at most? I just don't see it.

[Anonymous]

The virtual academy is either a school or not a school. If it is, then the per-student allocation, then, should be transferred over. Otherwise there is no financial underpinnings to keep it afloat. It would be no different than if you pulled all the funding from any physical school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder if there would be much cost savings closing the virtual academy. After all, there is no physical building, or anything associated with that. The technology is already baked in, in that all MCPS students have access to cheomebooks and zoom. It may actually be cheaper, in some ways.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait they are thinking of bringing Leader in Me back?!

No, they're thinking of getting rid of it altogether. (Some schools still have it.)

Well, that is a good thing. They should get rid of that trash. I didn't realize some schools still have it.

You're being generous. Trash isn't actively harmful like Virtual Academy has shown to be.

How is the Virtual Academy actively harmful?

I would think it would be tremendously valuable for students who are homebound for extended periods. If a child’s medical condition keeps them from attending school for a while, we shouldn’t expect the family to have to homeschool on top of everything else.

It seems like it provides useful differention to some students as PPs have described.

If it is somehow harmful, can the content be modified while maintaining the flexibility the format offers?

It's harmful the same way a charter school is harmful. It pulls money away from everything else.

Right now the school is getting the funding for a virtual student and not providing any services. Almost all of the schools are overcrowded so this reduces overcrowding and the funding loss to each school would be minimal if they stop paying that school for the slot.

And, maybe if the schools were better able to meet all students needs, there wouldn't be a need for virtual for some families but that isn't the case.

dp.. this is impossible realistically. MCPS doesn't have an infinite budget.

Mcps is paying the home schools the funding for the students in virtual. The simple solution is to pull that money as the home schools are not educating the students and give that money to virtual. Done.

This is *exactly* the charter school model - bleed public schools dry to service the needs of a more privileged group. In the case of charters, it's parents who can navigate the application process. For VA, it's families with one parent at home all day. In either case, stealing from the highest needs groups to subsidize the lowest needs (UMC families with a SAH parent) is not how we want to do business in Montgomery County.

Where are you getting your information from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The virtual academy is either a school or not a school. If it is, then the per-student allocation, then, should be transferred over. Otherwise there is no financial underpinnings to keep it afloat. It would be no different than if you pulled all the funding from any physical school.

It’s a program not a school. For what ever reason mcps choose not to make it an actual school. But, they don’t have sports, activities, a physical building, bus service, food so far cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I recall the virtual academy services about 1,800 students. That is pretty large, given there are schools with just three hundred or less in the district. The problem is that federal funds have essentially run out. I would prefer that it continue, as there are students who clearly thrive there.

Beyond that I don't think that the system would actually benefit from the virtual academy staff coming back, in-person. Some, because of health reasons, can't. They would probably quit or retire. Others may be problematic, as there are one or two who were transferred there after being troublesome in their own schools. (Harassment of staff comes to mind.)

And then there is the issue of redistributing students, which might push class capacity in some schools. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

No, virtual academy is less than 900 students, with enrollment dropping rapidly. Spread across all grades and schools, that's miniscule. VA students would simply get absorbed back into their home schools. The marginal cost of bringing these students back into schools is almost nothing. Getting rid of VA would save a ton of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder if there would be much cost savings closing the virtual academy. After all, there is no physical building, or anything associated with that. The technology is already baked in, in that all MCPS students have access to cheomebooks and zoom. It may actually be cheaper, in some ways.

It is cheaper when you look at the numbers so this makes no sense.

It's not cheaper. Schools are roughly fixed costs in this case. You can absorb VA students back into homeschool classrooms without needing to build more schools. And, unless there's a concentrated group of VA students in a particular place and grade, you wouldn't even need to bring in another teacher to accommodate them. VA simply adds additional costs beyond what we already need to spend on classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing what they can waste money on and then choose to get rid of the VA that benefits some students.

There are very few students left in virtual. It would be far more efficient to have a state-wide virtual option.

+1. But the VA proponents always come up with 100 reasons why that isn't a good idea.

We do not have an educational services at the state level so, if they get rid of it, there will be no virtual program. Plenty of other things to cut, starting with the kid museum. Why is mcps funding nonprofits.

Maybe if more parents were advocating for it, they would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I recall the virtual academy services about 1,800 students. That is pretty large, given there are schools with just three hundred or less in the district. The problem is that federal funds have essentially run out. I would prefer that it continue, as there are students who clearly thrive there.

Beyond that I don't think that the system would actually benefit from the virtual academy staff coming back, in-person. Some, because of health reasons, can't. They would probably quit or retire. Others may be problematic, as there are one or two who were transferred there after being troublesome in their own schools. (Harassment of staff comes to mind.)

And then there is the issue of redistributing students, which might push class capacity in some schools. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

No, virtual academy is less than 900 students, with enrollment dropping rapidly. Spread across all grades and schools, that's miniscule. VA students would simply get absorbed back into their home schools. The marginal cost of bringing these students back into schools is almost nothing. Getting rid of VA would save a ton of money.

Or, get rid of other programs and use the real student funding to pay for the va vs giving it to the home schools that are not providing anything to the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing what they can waste money on and then choose to get rid of the VA that benefits some students.

There are very few students left in virtual. It would be far more efficient to have a state-wide virtual option.

+1. But the VA proponents always come up with 100 reasons why that isn't a good idea.

We do not have an educational services at the state level so, if they get rid of it, there will be no virtual program. Plenty of other things to cut, starting with the kid museum. Why is mcps funding nonprofits.

Maybe if more parents were advocating for it, they would.

The state is not in the education business. the county is. No one is going to advocate it for the state level but you. So, please go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I recall the virtual academy services about 1,800 students. That is pretty large, given there are schools with just three hundred or less in the district. The problem is that federal funds have essentially run out. I would prefer that it continue, as there are students who clearly thrive there.

Beyond that I don't think that the system would actually benefit from the virtual academy staff coming back, in-person. Some, because of health reasons, can't. They would probably quit or retire. Others may be problematic, as there are one or two who were transferred there after being troublesome in their own schools. (Harassment of staff comes to mind.)

And then there is the issue of redistributing students, which might push class capacity in some schools. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

No, virtual academy is less than 900 students, with enrollment dropping rapidly. Spread across all grades and schools, that's miniscule. VA students would simply get absorbed back into their home schools. The marginal cost of bringing these students back into schools is almost nothing. Getting rid of VA would save a ton of money.

Or, get rid of other programs and use the real student funding to pay for the va vs giving it to the home schools that are not providing anything to the students.

So, what programs do you want to get rid of that collectively cost the same amount as VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also wonder if there would be much cost savings closing the virtual academy. After all, there is no physical building, or anything associated with that. The technology is already baked in, in that all MCPS students have access to cheomebooks and zoom. It may actually be cheaper, in some ways.

It is cheaper when you look at the numbers so this makes no sense.

It's not cheaper. Schools are roughly fixed costs in this case. You can absorb VA students back into homeschool classrooms without needing to build more schools. And, unless there's a concentrated group of VA students in a particular place and grade, you wouldn't even need to bring in another teacher to accommodate them. VA simply adds additional costs beyond what we already need to spend on classrooms.

Of course it’s cheaper to educate virtually. And, it helps with overcrowding. The issue is they are not giving the student money to the va, they are giving it to the homeschool and paying for the va out of different funds. They need to use that students allocated money and give it to the va. Most Va kids never set foot in their home schools so them getting funding for these kids is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I recall the virtual academy services about 1,800 students. That is pretty large, given there are schools with just three hundred or less in the district. The problem is that federal funds have essentially run out. I would prefer that it continue, as there are students who clearly thrive there.

Beyond that I don't think that the system would actually benefit from the virtual academy staff coming back, in-person. Some, because of health reasons, can't. They would probably quit or retire. Others may be problematic, as there are one or two who were transferred there after being troublesome in their own schools. (Harassment of staff comes to mind.)

And then there is the issue of redistributing students, which might push class capacity in some schools. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

No, virtual academy is less than 900 students, with enrollment dropping rapidly. Spread across all grades and schools, that's miniscule. VA students would simply get absorbed back into their home schools. The marginal cost of bringing these students back into schools is almost nothing. Getting rid of VA would save a ton of money.

Or, get rid of other programs and use the real student funding to pay for the va vs giving it to the home schools that are not providing anything to the students.

So, what programs do you want to get rid of that collectively cost the same amount as VA?

We can cut central office staff, stop finding nonprofits that don’t benefit students, like the kid museum. The kid museum gets mil,ions and dies very little for mcps kids. They charge for field trips. https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/fy23/ciprec/P721903.pdf