Virtual Public Schools: Visions, Problems and Solutions – Part I
Daniel Downs
March 17, 2007
Are two new virtual school openings a step closer to the fulfillment of national school choice envisioned by the US Chamber of Commerce?
Last week the US Department of Education announced plans to open two new virtual charter schools in Indiana. Indiana Virtual Charter School and the Indiana Connections Academy are first schools of its kind in Indiana. Both schools are expected to open in the fall of 2007 with up to 2,200 students.
Since 2005, many states have been rushing to either create charter laws or revise existing ones to include virtual schools. In Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and South Dakota legislation has been introduced to expand charter law to include virtual schools. Wyoming is still considering whether their charter laws need revised, according to North American Council for Online Learning.
While states like Indiana are progressing with school reform, Ohio is regressing. Governor Strickland announced on Wednesday his plan halt all new charter school start-ups, eliminate for-profit company management of charter schools, and eliminate all school voucher programs except the means-tested voucher initiative in Cleveland. I suspect his plan is meant to show loyalty to his professional employees in both public schools and universities.
Here is an ironic turn; a progressive governor seeks to end progress to bolster special interests and what the study Leaders and Laggards called an out-dated system. The glory of big government gets another shot in its aging existence.
In Indiana, opponents of virtual charter schools claim charter school law never intended home-based students to receive public funding. In an article published by the Indianapolis Star, Stacey Hupp also reveals how Indiana educators view the issue. Quoting Dan Clark, spokesman for NEA affiliate Indiana State Teachers Association, she writes,
"There's no provision to allow just your regular student to stay home 99 percent of the time and have the state pay full dollars for that. We're not objecting to home-schoolers in any way, shape or form. But we're saying the legislature ought to specifically authorize this if they want it to be done."
Like Dan Clark, opponents confuse the issue by calling alternative public schooling private home-schooling in disguise. There is nothing private about it. According to the publication Inside Indiana Business, a certified teacher is assigned to virtual school students. They monitor daily attendance and learning progress on-line. They also grade tests, consults with students and parents via computer, telephone or in-person. Besides, former home-schoolers make up less than 25 percent of virtual school student population nationwide, according to a recent study by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
The real issue opponents have with charter schools in general and virtual schooling in particular is the money issue. On that point, the Home School Legal Defense Association agrees. One of their arguments against home-schoolers transitioning to virtual charter schooling is increased profits for public schools. Like all public schools, funding is based on attendance. Federal and much of state funding is based on attendance formulas. The real issue is about money and control. One consequence of home-schoolers transitioning to virtual charter schooling is an invasion of state further into the home. It enters by means of public accountability and control.
Proponents, however, argue because virtual charter schools are public schools parents have no expenses as do private home-schoolers. The only specified intrusion into the home is by computer and by telephone. Parents are responsible for their children’s attendance and for assisting with their learning, but certified teachers located at a regional administrative center monitors attendance, access to on-line curriculum, and on-line testing. Parent-teacher-student conferences are conducted over the Internet, by telephone, during face-to-face meetings, and during standardized testing, which is taken at the administrative center.
Some opponents such as Steven Schafersman claim virtual charter schools are by intent anti-science, by which he means anti-evolution science. His concern about William Bennett’s religious position and its application to these schools is not unwarranted.
Several articles in NEA Today contradict his claim. In Virtual Classroom, Karen Nitkin finds forty-one percent of school districts plan to offer online science courses. Some of those courses include genetics and other college level sciences. In a more recent article, a debate about virtual dissection is discussed. The title of the article is Are Virtual Dissection Simulations an Acceptable Substitute for Real Animal Specimens? Remember high school biology and those slimy frogs? The authors polled educators about whether virtual dissection simulations are an acceptable substitute for real animal specimens. Fifty-three percent agreed it was while forty-seven percent disagreed. The point here is advances in technology allow the same science instruction in a virtual classroom as at brick-and-mortar schools.
Public educators who oppose charter schools may believe school choice is a threat to their paychecks. This is doubtful for a number of reasons. An excellent study to be published in the May 2007 edition of the University of Illinois Law Review by James Forman, Jr. indicates that charter schools today are more likely to increase school funding. Why? Because charter school innovation has proven an extended school year results in higher achievement. Maybe that is the reason non-charter public schools are moving toward a longer school year. Virtual charter schools could also save states money, but only if all schools were virtual. Because teacher to pupil ratio is twice that of brick-and-mortar schools, fewer traditional teachers would be needed. Central administration is still a necessary component of virtual charter schools, but in an all virtual school system, fewer administrators would be needed as well. I suspect as many or more teachers would be needed in such a choice system, but there would be much more specialization. Yet without reform of the political economy, the fear of many professional educators is unwarranted. Without an economy in which one member of every family earns a livable wage, few families would be able to take advantage of an equitable choice school system even if one did exist. That is something public officials and their followers intend never to occur.
Watch for Part II of Virtual Public Schools: Visions, Problems and Solutions next week.
Last week the US Department of Education announced plans to open two new virtual charter schools in Indiana. Indiana Virtual Charter School and the Indiana Connections Academy are first schools of its kind in Indiana. Both schools are expected to open in the fall of 2007 with up to 2,200 students.
Since 2005, many states have been rushing to either create charter laws or revise existing ones to include virtual schools. In Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and South Dakota legislation has been introduced to expand charter law to include virtual schools. Wyoming is still considering whether their charter laws need revised, according to North American Council for Online Learning.
While states like Indiana are progressing with school reform, Ohio is regressing. Governor Strickland announced on Wednesday his plan halt all new charter school start-ups, eliminate for-profit company management of charter schools, and eliminate all school voucher programs except the means-tested voucher initiative in Cleveland. I suspect his plan is meant to show loyalty to his professional employees in both public schools and universities.
Here is an ironic turn; a progressive governor seeks to end progress to bolster special interests and what the study Leaders and Laggards called an out-dated system. The glory of big government gets another shot in its aging existence.
In Indiana, opponents of virtual charter schools claim charter school law never intended home-based students to receive public funding. In an article published by the Indianapolis Star, Stacey Hupp also reveals how Indiana educators view the issue. Quoting Dan Clark, spokesman for NEA affiliate Indiana State Teachers Association, she writes,
"There's no provision to allow just your regular student to stay home 99 percent of the time and have the state pay full dollars for that. We're not objecting to home-schoolers in any way, shape or form. But we're saying the legislature ought to specifically authorize this if they want it to be done."
Like Dan Clark, opponents confuse the issue by calling alternative public schooling private home-schooling in disguise. There is nothing private about it. According to the publication Inside Indiana Business, a certified teacher is assigned to virtual school students. They monitor daily attendance and learning progress on-line. They also grade tests, consults with students and parents via computer, telephone or in-person. Besides, former home-schoolers make up less than 25 percent of virtual school student population nationwide, according to a recent study by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
The real issue opponents have with charter schools in general and virtual schooling in particular is the money issue. On that point, the Home School Legal Defense Association agrees. One of their arguments against home-schoolers transitioning to virtual charter schooling is increased profits for public schools. Like all public schools, funding is based on attendance. Federal and much of state funding is based on attendance formulas. The real issue is about money and control. One consequence of home-schoolers transitioning to virtual charter schooling is an invasion of state further into the home. It enters by means of public accountability and control.
Proponents, however, argue because virtual charter schools are public schools parents have no expenses as do private home-schoolers. The only specified intrusion into the home is by computer and by telephone. Parents are responsible for their children’s attendance and for assisting with their learning, but certified teachers located at a regional administrative center monitors attendance, access to on-line curriculum, and on-line testing. Parent-teacher-student conferences are conducted over the Internet, by telephone, during face-to-face meetings, and during standardized testing, which is taken at the administrative center.
Some opponents such as Steven Schafersman claim virtual charter schools are by intent anti-science, by which he means anti-evolution science. His concern about William Bennett’s religious position and its application to these schools is not unwarranted.
Several articles in NEA Today contradict his claim. In Virtual Classroom, Karen Nitkin finds forty-one percent of school districts plan to offer online science courses. Some of those courses include genetics and other college level sciences. In a more recent article, a debate about virtual dissection is discussed. The title of the article is Are Virtual Dissection Simulations an Acceptable Substitute for Real Animal Specimens? Remember high school biology and those slimy frogs? The authors polled educators about whether virtual dissection simulations are an acceptable substitute for real animal specimens. Fifty-three percent agreed it was while forty-seven percent disagreed. The point here is advances in technology allow the same science instruction in a virtual classroom as at brick-and-mortar schools.
Public educators who oppose charter schools may believe school choice is a threat to their paychecks. This is doubtful for a number of reasons. An excellent study to be published in the May 2007 edition of the University of Illinois Law Review by James Forman, Jr. indicates that charter schools today are more likely to increase school funding. Why? Because charter school innovation has proven an extended school year results in higher achievement. Maybe that is the reason non-charter public schools are moving toward a longer school year. Virtual charter schools could also save states money, but only if all schools were virtual. Because teacher to pupil ratio is twice that of brick-and-mortar schools, fewer traditional teachers would be needed. Central administration is still a necessary component of virtual charter schools, but in an all virtual school system, fewer administrators would be needed as well. I suspect as many or more teachers would be needed in such a choice system, but there would be much more specialization. Yet without reform of the political economy, the fear of many professional educators is unwarranted. Without an economy in which one member of every family earns a livable wage, few families would be able to take advantage of an equitable choice school system even if one did exist. That is something public officials and their followers intend never to occur.
Watch for Part II of Virtual Public Schools: Visions, Problems and Solutions next week.
Print
Email
