Blended learning for long term medically impacted students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t know MCPS was working on a solution. This looks really positive for families who were previously enrolled in MVA and cannot attend school due to medical needs. I especially like that parent supervision is required for children under 12 and recommended for over 12.

Most MVA kids didn't have medical needs. That's why the MVAers don't like the plan.

Some MVA kids have families who have medical needs. This program does not treat those kids as part of their families--if the child themselves does not have "long term medical impacts," too bad. Remarkably short-sighted. But: it's MCPS.

Look, I live with someone undergoing chemo right now and a cold could kill him. I get it. But keeping my kids home from school for the length of chemo treatment is not a reasonable solution and has never been suggested by a single medical professional.

That’s your choice and situation. Why do you get to decide what’s best for others? Maybe you should keep your kids home.

You can keep your kids home all you want, just don't expect taxpayers to pay for it. Time to pony up or homeschool.

Why should we as tax payers pay for your kids to be in person when it’s cheaper for virtual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get the sense that many posters here think most of the MVA type students are in this because of imagined issues?

Well, I think that a lot of the issues that folks shared publicly and on DCUM were less than compelling. They were things like "we like to travel on non-peak seasons" and "I'm worried about the focus on fashion in public middle school."

Yes, there were folks who had kids awaiting transplants and with legitimate needs, and those folks will be able to enter the program being rolled out. But, yeah, the testimony of some of the families did not suggest a genuine medical need, and certainly not a medical need on the part of the child themselves.

And, its people are not public about why. People are not traveling. Yes, there was some genuine medical need but if it is family preference why do you care. You spend online all day. Why is that ok for you?

God the former MVA parents are tedious.

Great parents advocating for their kids. Why do you care so much? The cost is minimal. You get choice, so why shouldn’t others? If cost is a concern lots of things can be reduced in MCPS.

Everyone gets the same choices. Take what the public school offers, pay for private, or homeschool.

Actually that’s not true. Lots of options in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t know MCPS was working on a solution. This looks really positive for families who were previously enrolled in MVA and cannot attend school due to medical needs. I especially like that parent supervision is required for children under 12 and recommended for over 12.

Most MVA kids didn't have medical needs. That's why the MVAers don't like the plan.

Some MVA kids have families who have medical needs. This program does not treat those kids as part of their families--if the child themselves does not have "long term medical impacts," too bad. Remarkably short-sighted. But: it's MCPS.

Look, I live with someone undergoing chemo right now and a cold could kill him. I get it. But keeping my kids home from school for the length of chemo treatment is not a reasonable solution and has never been suggested by a single medical professional.

That’s your choice and situation. Why do you get to decide what’s best for others? Maybe you should keep your kids home.

You can keep your kids home all you want, just don't expect taxpayers to pay for it. Time to pony up or homeschool.

Why should we as tax payers pay for your kids to be in person when it’s cheaper for virtual?

If you'd like to abolish in person instruction run a slate of candidates and see what the voters say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

[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:I didn’t know MCPS was working on a solution. This looks really positive for families who were previously enrolled in MVA and cannot attend school due to medical needs. I especially like that parent supervision is required for children under 12 and recommended for over 12.

Most MVA kids didn't have medical needs. That's why the MVAers don't like the plan.

Correct. Most MVA families wanted the option preserved for their choice or to continue to enable their children’s anxiety disorders.

Anxiety is an illness. If you can’t go do school in person due to your anxiety, this is a great option.

It’s an illness with many treatments options. Many kids who have anxiety successfully attend in-person and have been doing so for years.

Right, and many also got better treatment as they were in virtual, could get rid of the triggers and focus on their mental health. Many kids have NOT been successful in person. That is why they have so many meaningless mental health trainings for the kids and have social workers, counselors and therapists in the schools as parents no longer parent and expect the schools to do everything. If kids were managing so great, why is in person such a hot mess.

So, you think the kid that need an organ transplant would be better off in person? Kids with medical issues? Kids with mental health issues that struggled in person? Kids whose learning style works best with virtual and/or kids who need more support who aren't getting it in person where they can at home? How about kids with severe medical and other issues? Wheelchair-bound in a school without good access? Kids who rely on adults for their daily care, bathroom, etc? How about the kids who were forced back in person and don't have para's as promised?

First of all, most of the items on your list would and will qualify for blended learning.

Second of all, a wheelchair user would already have the ability to be assigned to a school with accessible facilities, and deserve to be educated alongside their peers.

Third of all, "wheelchair bound" is not the preferred terminology, which you would know if you saw kids who use mobility aids as anything but a talking point.

The issue is the blended program is not equal to the MVA so these kids will not get adequate education

Then send them to school. I think almost everyone agrees that's the preferable solution.

They did go to school. You are clueless.

Right, before covid nearly all of the school-aged kids went to school. And they can again.

As someone who had a kid on IIS, and then homeschooled because IIS was so awful, before covid, I can tell you there were significant numbers of kids on IIS.

Then you should be happy with the proposal. Or homeschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

What buildings did MCPS get rid of when they had MVA? Which ones did they bring back when MVA closed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

No sports, activities, less staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

No sports, activities, less staff.

No sports? When did MCPS get of sports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

What buildings did MCPS get rid of when they had MVA? Which ones did they bring back when MVA closed?

The boe took over the mva space and spent a fortune renovating it. Pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

What buildings did MCPS get rid of when they had MVA? Which ones did they bring back when MVA closed?

The boe took over the mva space and spent a fortune renovating it. Pay attention.

That's a net zero change in buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

Thanks for responding. Are you saying that MCPS' overall spending on heat, AC, busses, and lunch aides went down as a result of the VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

No sports, activities, less staff.

I'll ask the same question I asked the other PP. Did overall MCPS spending on sports, activities, and staffing go down as a result of the VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

No sports, activities, less staff.

I'll ask the same question I asked the other PP. Did overall MCPS spending on sports, activities, and staffing go down as a result of the VA?

Close all the schools and you'll see how much it saves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the cost per pupil for the MVA more or less than if those students had gone to their in-bounds schools?

Less
No buildings, heat, AC, buses, lunch aides

That's only if all children went virtual