Reply to Blended learning for long term medically impacted students

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Blended learning for long term medically impacted students"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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

A good number did or their family members but some opted to be more involved, bullying or just learn better.  Reasons don’t matter. Choice does.  [/quote]

There are private schools.

Some choices have costs.[/quote]

Privates are for the privileged like you and that doesn't help with the virtual part.  And, there is no true private that is equal to the MVA.  The only few I found were $50k+ a year.[/quote]

Choices have costs. Many parents paid tens of thousands of dollars for school when MCPS was closed. If you're unwilling or inable to pay for your choices, then you're left with what is being provided.[/quote]

One has nothing to do with the other.  MCPS was not closed, it was virtual.  Big difference.[/quote]

If you aren't satisfied with what the public system provides for free, you can pay for a program of your own choosing.[/quote]

You do realize a lot of the MVA students did leave MCPS and MCPS will lose student revenue because of that.  Since MVA education was cheaper than in person, that means your children don't benefit from the extra money spend on them that wasn't spend on the MVA students.[/quote]

I saw Courtney's post, but I didn't see a source. Regardless, she made a false assumption that all revenue is per-pupil.

And no, MVA wasn't cheaper than in-person. The marginal cost of operating MVA was more than the marginal cost of serving those students in their usual placements.[/quote]

In theory the per pupil allocation should go for that child but it obviously doesn't.  However, yes, it is cheaper, no buses, no activities/sports in person, no physical buildings, etc.  So, tell me how it would cost the same?[/quote]

She claimed that by 295 kids leaving MCPS, MCPS lost $5.8M in revenue. That simply isn't true. Most revenue is not provided to MCPS on a per pupil basis.

MVA didn't allow MCPS to get rid of any buses, bus routes, activities, school buildings, or classroom teachers. It just added expenses to operate the MVA. It wasn't cheaper.[/quote]

+1 We know that MVA cost MCPS about $5m to run, without reducing any costs anywhere else since the number of "sending" students from each school was so small as to not make a difference. We also know that fewer than 285 families left the district entirely. As shared at one of the many meetings that were hijacked by MVA folks, that was the number who signaled in an informal poll that they might leave, but not the number that actually left the system.

But more importantly, the "per pupil spending" number is not the same as the amount that each student brings in by the sheer presence. That number is much lower.

[/quote]

Is the source of that 295-students claim the online poll?  I doubt the accuracy of that poll.[/quote]

No, data from mcps. [/quote]

That seems rather unlikely. Enrollment is counted September 30th. You think MCPS put numbers out on October 1, with the MVA breakdown no less?  Does that seem plausible for MCPS?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics