Wisconsin's Virtual Schools Saved... For Now

That was the title of an article posted in one of the NACOL forums yesterday. The article read:

Wisconsin's virtual schools saved ... for now
School officials testifying at hearings made a difference.

Todd Beckmann
Sentinel News Editor

It was good news when Grantsburg Superintendent Joni Burgin picked up the phone Monday afternoon.

"Senator Luther Olsen, on the Senate Education Committee, called me on Monday and told me he and Senator Lehman had reached a compromise on the Senate Bill in the Senate Education Committee," Burgin said.

Earlier this month the Wisconsin Legislature set out to "fix" the statute regarding virtual schools after a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision last December put the future of all virtual schools in doubt.

The court ruling explained the existing statutes didn't fit what the Northern Ozaukee School District did when they opened their virtual school - the Wisconsin Virtual Academy.

The so-called Lehman Bill, as proposed by Sen. John Lehman in the Senate Education Committee to fix the statute, was, in Burgin's words, a bill "for people who don't like virtual school."

The Lehman Bill is one which Burgin testified against during a hearing last week in Madison.

Insight School of Wisconsin principal Billy Beesley was a member of the Grantsburg contingent who went to Madison to oppose the Lehman Bill. Beesley and about 12 students had hoped to meet with the Governor to discuss the virtues of on-line schooling, but didn't get the chance.

While in the capital, Burgin also testified in favor of the Davis Bill.

The Davis Bill, the counterpart to the Lehman Bill, was in a hearing before author Sen. Brett Davis and the rest of the Assembly Education Committee.

The Davis Bill, a minimalist bill, just fixes the statutes to allow successful virtual schools to continue.

"I think the legislators really listened to what we had to say," Burgin said of the hearings. "Senators Lehman and Olsen met on Friday and crafted a new bill."

"I think we can all live with what they have come up with," she continued.

Beesley agreed.

We were doing things differently than the school which was sued, but I think this new bill will strengthen everybody," he said.

Olsen also told Burgin on Monday the compromise bill has the support of Sen. Davis.

"There is now a bi-partisan virtual school bill that will correct the outdated statutes and allow us to continue to operate our virtual schools. It does provide regulations but maintains funding and removed the 15 percent local attendance requirement," Burgin pointed out.

The 15 percent requirement called for that percentage of any virtual school's enrollment to be local - a restriction which would have seriously jeopardized Grantsburg's Insight School of Wisconsin.

"If all goes according to Senator Olsen's timeline, and the Governor supports the effort, the matter should be resolved by mid-February," Burgin concluded.

Now you'll notice in the article, they mention two pieces of legislation.

1. Lehman Bill - http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-396.pdf
2. Davis Bill - http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB-697.pdf

So, what do these two bills actually say. [note: I've been meaning to spend some time reading both and comparing them. But I originally wrote this entry four days ago and have been sitting on it waiting to get some time to complete this so I figured today I would just post it and do the bill comparison next week sometime when I get a free moment. - MKB]

I notice today there was another item posted in the NACOL forums.

Legislators reveal new rules, to keep virtual schools open - WI

by Pedro Oliveira Jr.
Friday, January 25, 2008

Wisconsin lawmakers unveiled a bipartisan compromise Thursday that would allow virtual schools to stay online throughout the state.

The compromise comes after a December ruling by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that said state statutes on teachers’ certification, open enrollment and charter schools were not being appropriately applied to virtual education.

The court called on legislators to regulate virtual schools in order to keep them open.

Sen. John Lehman, D-Racine, said this proposal aims to allow virtual schools to operate, solidify funding sources and ensure quality of education and academic accountability.

“We know that there are families out there who are thinking about open enrollment in the next couple of weeks, and we know they’re apprehensive,” Lehman said. “We heard from many folks who are satisfied with the schools, but are apprehensive with what’s going to happen with these schools.”

Virtual schools educate nearly 3,500 Wisconsin children from kindergarten to high school. Wisconsin currently has 12 virtual charter schools in operation, and most students opted out of traditional schools because of the distance or other personal reasons, like taking advanced coursework not offered at their local school.

Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, said the legislation is currently in Gov. Jim Doyle’s office for review, and lawmakers hope it will pass in both houses by Feb. 3, when enrollment in most virtual schools begins.

If passed, the legislation would also allow for a funding of nearly $6,000 for each open-enrollment student.

“We believe the particulars of the draft are going to be very satisfactory to both houses and to the governor,” Lehman said.

Last week, more than 1,000 parents and students rallied at the Capitol to keep virtual schools open, and the issue was discussed at two public hearings.

“We hope this surge in support of online public charter schools receives the blessings of legislative leadership, that this deal is not altered and that we can move forward together,” Rose Fernandez, president of the Wisconsin Coalition of Virtual School Families, wrote in a statement.

Along with allowing schools to continue operation, the compromise would also require that teachers respond to student or parent inquiries within 24 hours and that virtual charter schools provide certified teachers for each course and create a parent advisory board to meet on a regular basis.

On the students’ side of the deal, truants who fail to respond appropriately to assignments or teacher-initiated contact within five schools days may be transferred to their home district after three incidents of truancy in a semester.

But the Wisconsin Education Association Council is questioning the funding for the program because it could “divert state funding away from school districts across Wisconsin.”

Christina Brey, WEAC communications coordinator, said the organization is currently analyzing the proposed legislation, but declined further comment.

“WEAC will analyze the bill on the basis of quality, accountability and its fiscal impact on all of the children in Wisconsin’s schools before deciding whether or not to support it,” the organization wrote Thursday.

The governor’s press office did not respond to a call seeking comment Thursday.

For other entries that I've written on this topic see:

• Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin
• Should NACOL Get Involved?
  
• More on Virtual Schooling in Wisconsin
• Now This Is What Is Needed
• Focus on Wisconsin
• Speaking of Wisconsin - Supernanny

Tags: NACOL, Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Interesting Findings On Charter Schools

While not specifically speaking to cyber charter schools, this looks to be an interesting article.

Disparities in charter school resources - the influence of state policy and community

Authors: Edward Bodine ^a; Bruce Fuller ^a; María-Fernanda González ^a; Luis Huerta ^b; Sandra Naughton ^a; Sandra Park ^a; Laik Woon Teh ^a

Affiliations: ^a University of California, Berkeley; ^b Teachers College, Columbia University

DOI: 10.1080/02680930701625262

Published in: Journal of Education Policy, Volume 23, Issue 1 - January 2008 , pages 1 - 33

Abstract: Recent findings show that students attending charter schools in the United States achieve at comparable or lower levels to those enrolled in regular public schools, perhaps due to uneven quality and disparities in the levels of resources acquired by charter schools. But little is known as to what state and local factors contribute to disparate levels of resources in the charter school sector. This article examines how local context, the charter school's organizational form, and state policies may influence material and human resources obtained by charter schools and their capacity to innovate. We find marked differences among charter schools situated in different US states in terms of teacher qualities, student-staff ratios, length of the school day, and the propensity to unionize, drawing on data from the US Schools and Staffing Survey for the 1999/2000 school year. Charter schools rely less on uncredentialed teachers in states that more tightly regulate the sector, and state spending is associated with more equal teacher salaries among charter schools within states. But the lion's share of variance in charter school resources is attributable to highly variable local contexts, not to state-level factors, especially the kinds of students served and the school's organizational form. Charter schools serving predominately black students rely on less experienced teachers who are more likely to be uncredentialed; their teachers also report more demanding working conditions and lower levels of efficacy, compared with charter teachers working in white schools. Conversion charter schools pay staff over $5100 more annually and rely much less on uncredentialed and part-time teachers than do start-up schools. We examine implications for the reproduction of unequal student achievement within the charter school sector.

This just showed up in my inbox, so I haven't had a chance to read it myself. But if you do, let me know what you think.

Tags: research, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Speaking of Wisconsin - Supernanny

While I'll be honest and say hat I haven't watched this episode, this entry that appeared in my Bloglines last week alerted me to this...

Critics take aim at virtual schooling after Kaukauna 'Supernanny' episode - Kathy Walsh Nufer, Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers
By Ray from Online Learning Update

The nature of the online learning courses taken by two Kaukauna girls featured with their family on the TV show "Supernanny" has ignited debate in the Fox Cities over the quality of their education. The show, which aired Jan. 2 on ABC, spurred volumes of criticism of the family on ABC's Web site and in Post-Crescent online forums. It showed the girls, ages 17 and 15, describing the high school...

Like I say, I haven't watched the episode myself. But if you want to I see that someone (thanks frshholygrailzEGO) has put the video on YouTube in five separate segments.

• Supernanny - The Chapman Family PART 1
• Supernanny - The Chapman Family PART 1
• Supernanny - The Chapman Family PART 3
• Supernanny - The Chapman Family PART 4
• Supernanny - The Chapman Family PART 5

Based upon the comments that I have read, I think that this is an example of cyber schooling (as opposed to virtual schooling - see A Need for a Common Language for the distinction).

Tags: Wisconsin, Supernanny, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Focus on Wisconsin

So, most of the Virtual Schooling in the News weekly feature this week dealt with the issue of the charter cyber schools in Wisconsin (and notice how most stories called them virtual schools - see A Need for a Common Language). Anyway, here are two items posted in the NACOL forums about the issue.

Wisconsin at center of national debate over virtual schools

By RYAN J. FOLEY | Associated Press Writer

CROSS PLAINS, Wis. — Seventh grader Marcy Thompson is caught in the middle of a national policy debate that could close her school and help determine the future of online education.

Thompson is one of a growing number of students nationwide trading home schooling and public schools for virtual ones where licensed teachers oversee her progress from afar.

She is enrolled in the Wisconsin Virtual Academy, a charter school based north of Milwaukee, but spends her days 130 miles away at home studying everything from literature to algebra under her mother’s guidance and a curriculum provided by the school district.

Supporters say virtual schools are an innovative educational option that works better for some students and is a godsend for parents who prefer their children learn from home.

But critics, including the nation’s largest teacher’s union, say the so-called cyber charter schools amount to little more than home schooling at taxpayers’ expense. They complain they take away money from traditional public schools and profit companies who sell curricula to districts.

Wisconsin is at the center of the debate after an appeals court in December ordered the state to stop funding the Wisconsin Virtual Academy, the state’s largest virtual school with 800 students.

The ruling was the first of its kind in the nation and has triggered a debate among lawmakers over how the schools should be funded and regulated. The schools’ supporters are preparing to fight one plan they say would cripple them in Wisconsin.

Observers say the outcome could help shape other states’ laws, either restricting or encouraging the schools’ growth.

“People are paying attention because online learning is really a growing phenomenon,” said Susan Patrick, president of the North American Council for Online Learning, a trade association for online learning. “And for us to arbitrarily shut down online learning for students is a really dangerous precedent to set.”

Virtual schools operate in 18 states from Colorado to Pennsylvania and enroll more than 90,000 students, according to the Virginia-based council.

They generally require parents to lead daily lessons provided by the school districts that run them. Licensed teachers monitor students’ progress through e-mails, online classes and tutoring.

But students have textbooks and do not spend their whole day in front of a computer. Thompson does homework, logs online for interactive classes about once a week and is a member of a math club that meets in person.

Still, Barbara Stein of the National Education Association, the teacher’s union, objected to the use of tax dollars to support what she called a new form of home schooling.

“The issue is whether a program where you don’t have licensed educators and where you don’t have students working directly with other students should be getting fully funded as though it were a quality educational experience,” she said.

Siding with a Wisconsin teacher’s union, the appeals court ruled the school was violating Wisconsin’s open enrollment, charter school and teacher licensing laws.

The court found parents were the primary educators — a violation of a state law requiring public school teachers to be licensed. And districts who operate schools cannot receive taxpayer money for students who do not attend school within their boundaries under current law, the court said.

Its logic could be applied to schools that enroll 3,000 students statewide, potentially shutting them down. Thompson’s school, which would be the first to close, will at least finish this school year while the ruling is appealed.

Thompson, 12, cried when she heard about the ruling. Now she is writing lawmakers to urge them to keep her school open in an essay called: “Why I Love My School.” She was home schooled through second grade but has attended the Wisconsin Virtual Academy since it opened five years ago.

She and her mother say the school’s curriculum, teachers who are specialists in subjects and interaction with other students are all preferable to home schooling.

“It’s a great education option for lots and lots and lots of people and they need to save it,” Thompson said before logging on to her computer for a lesson on Newton’s law.

Lawmakers of both parties say they want to keep the schools open but so far can’t agree on the details.

Democrats who control the Senate and the education superintendent are backing a plan that would cut the schools’ funding from $6,000 per student to $3,000. That’s compared to $11,000 for public school students.

Districts and advocates say virtual schools could not survive on that little money.

But Sen. John Lehman, a Racine Democrat and former high school teacher, said his plan would only mean less profit for companies like K12 Inc., a Virginia-based company that provides curriculum to online schools in 17 states.

His critics say it’s unfair to single out the company when textbook publishers, food vendors and busing companies profit from traditional schools.

K12 Inc. vice president Jeff Kwitowski said Lehman’s proposal would make Wisconsin unique in refusing to embrace online learning.

“Cutting the funding will impact the teachers and the kids far more than it would impact our company,” Kwitowski said.

His company and Republicans who control the Assembly are backing a competing bill that would change state law to allow the schools to stay open with few, if any, changes. Hundreds of students and parents are expected to rally in support of the plan at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Rep. Brett Davis, a Republican sponsor, said Wisconsin has the chance to become a national leader in online learning.

“The bottom line is it’s time to modernize education laws in Wisconsin,” Davis said. “We have these great virtual schools that are doing well. I think we’ve become a model for the country to look at but Sen. Lehman’s proposal would send us backward.”

Second...

U.S. Court ruling threatens the future of computer-based virtual schools
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CROSS PLAINS, Wisconsin - School districts across the United States are watching a court ruling that challenges the existence of virtual schools and could determine the future of online education.

The ruling is the first of its kind in the U.S. It placed the Wisconsin Virtual Academy at the centre of a national policy debate after critics raised a key question: Do virtual schools amount to little more than home schooling at taxpayer expense?

Virtual schools operate in 18 states, says the North American Council for Online Learning, a trade association.

More than 90,000 students from kindergarten through high school are enrolled in virtual schools nationwide.

Supporters say the schools are a big help for parents who prefer their children learn from home.

Opponents, including the largest U.S. teachers' union, insist the cyber charter schools drain money away from traditional schools.

"People are paying attention because online learning is really a growing phenomenon," said Susan Patrick, president of the North American Council for Online Learning.

"And for us to arbitrarily shut down online learning for students is a really dangerous precedent to set."

Virtual schools generally require parents to lead daily lessons. Licensed teachers monitor students' progress through e-mails, online classes and tutoring.

Last month, an appeals court ordered Wisconsin to stop funding the academy, ruling that parents were the primary educators - a violation of a state law requiring public school teachers to be licensed.

And, the panel said, districts that operate virtual schools cannot receive taxpayer money for students who don't attend classes within their boundaries.

The decision could shut down other Wisconsin virtual schools, which are used by 3,000 students.

Barbara Stein of the National Education Association, the teachers' union, says she objects to the use of tax dollars to support what she called a new form of home schooling.

"The issue is whether a program where you don't have licensed educators and where you don't have students working directly with other students should be getting fully funded as though it were a quality educational experience," she said.

Politicians from both political parties say they want to keep the virtual schools open, but they have been unable to agree on the details.

Republican state Representative Brett Davis said Wisconsin has the chance to become a national leader in online learning.

"The bottom line is it's time to modernize education laws in Wisconsin," Davis said. "We have these great virtual schools that are doing well. I think we've become a model for the country to look at."

From the blogsphere, here are some items that appeared in my Bloglines about the Wisconsin issue.

• Wisconsin's Largest Online High School Gears up for Open Enrollment
• Court Ruling Threatens Virtual Schools - RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press
• Wisconsin Virtual Assistant: New Year's Resolution
• Wisconsin virtual schools
• The wheels on the bus go to Madison
• $500? Why, it's an outr... Well, OK.
• Court Ruling Threatens Future of Virtual Schools
• Excellent Editorial Regarding Public Funding of Virtual Schools
• Saving Our Unique Style of Learning
• Virtual schools questionable recipients of public dollars
• Press release on huge Madison rally for virtual schools
• Wisconsin Eliminating Virtual Schools
• Every Kid Deserves a Great (Virtual) School
• For additional entries, click here

And you all know how I feel about this... See:

• Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin
• Should NACOL Get Involved?
  
• More on Virtual Schooling in Wisconsin
• Now This Is What Is Needed

All again for now.

Tags: NACOL, Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Now This Is What Is Needed

This is one of the articles that will appear in the Virtual School in the News feature tomorrow, but I had to get it out today (and on its own).

Lehman proposes fix for virtual charter
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/01/10/local_news/doc47864b38abc1f544053195.txt
By Journal Times staff
Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:43 AM CST

MADISON — The chairman of the Senate Education Committee, Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine), is introducing legislation to permit the continued operation of so-called "virtual charter schools" in Wisconsin. The need for action was triggered by a Court of Appeals decision holding that the operation and structure of a virtual charter school run by the Northern Ozaukee School District with the Virginia-based K12, Inc. is not permitted under the state’s existing charter school and open enrollment statutes.

Lehman stated, "Our state laws need to be updated to allow parents and children to continue to have a virtual charter school option. The E-Learning Options and Accountability Act will do that."

The major provisions of Lehman’s bill include:

Clarifying state law to address the Appeals Court ruling to specifically allow school districts to charter virtual schools and enroll students from across the state regardless of the location of the chartering district.

Ensuring quality by setting minimum standards for contact between teachers and students.

Providing a per pupil funding level based on actual costs incurred for providing on-line learning.

He commented, "By setting some minimum standards for teacher contact we can preserve the innovation and self-directed study opportunities online learning provides students while ensuring quality.

Lehman’s bill will also more closely align per pupil funding provided by taxpayers to these virtual schools more closely with actual instructional costs.

He noted, "The open enrollment funding loophole currently being used by some of these charter schools ships local tax dollars for public schools to out-of-state corporations without any consideration of the actual educational costs. Virtual schools don’t have costs associated with operating a traditional brick and mortar school. We ought to protect local taxpayers by making sure we’re only paying for the actual costs of on-line instruction."

Lehman said he hopes that prompt, bipartisan action will allow this issue to be addressed prior to the close of this legislative session to avoid the need for further litigation saying, "More appeals and lawsuits only prolong the uncertainty and hurts the parents and children involved in virtual charter schools."

He concluded, "I’m hopeful that a reasonable approach addressing the issues raised by the court to allow virtual charters to operate, setting minimum standards to ensure a quality education and protecting taxpayers by aligning public funding with actual costs can be quickly enacted into law."

Now for those of you that follow this blog, you'll recall I've had a lot to say about this issue for the past month (see Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin, Should NACOL Get Involved? and More on Virtual Schooling in Wisconsin).

For those who have been following along, you'll know that what is being described in this news item is exactly the response I have been arguing in favour of. To quote from the entry on Should NACOL Get Involved?:

I would encourage the legislature to amend the funding formula to reflect the reality of this form of virtual schooling. By this I mean add a provision so that virtual schools where parents are required to perform the role of teachers receive a smaller per student allocation because the licensed teachers of the school are only doing a percentage of the work that would be done by a brick and mortar (or even traditional virtual school model that has developed in most states).

And this is where NACOL should invest its energies in my opinion, lobby the legislature to make these changes and not standing up for a virtual school simply because it is a virtual school.

I know that the legislature has the common sense to pass this legislation and pass it quickly. I'm also quite pleased with the fact that this legislation appears to include a different funding formula for virtual charter schools and specific requirements for teachers. And I'm not sure if NACOL was involved in the lobbying that took place, but if they were my hats off to them for this result.

Simply put, this is the best of both worlds - as it allows students for whom this form of education is working to avail themselves of it, but still addresses the very real and legitimate concerns raised by the recent appeals court decision.

Tags: NACOL, Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Governor Speaks on Virtual Schooling

Another item from Allison in the NACOL forums.

GOVERNOR KAINE’S PREPARED REMARKS, VA to Fund Virtual AP Courses

This is great to have a governor speak about virtual education! About 3/4 of the way down the page, under Education, he mentions that he wants to fund virtual AP Courses.

GOVERNOR KAINE’S PREPARED REMARKS TO JOINT MEETING OF THE SENATE FINANCE, HOUSE

http://www.virginiastar.net/articles2/ar07...arks_Budget.htm

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get them all saying these kinds of things?

Tags: NACOL, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Foreign Language Learning Online

Got this item from Allison Powell in the NACOL forums.

Live online classes cash in on Chinese-language le, The Star Online

This article is from The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my)
URL: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...54&sec=business
__________________________________________________________________________
Monday December 24, 2007
Live online classes cash in on Chinese-language learning
By CHEN JIALU

FRED Rao hopes to make learning the Chinese language accessible in every corner of the globe as even the most remote regions now have Internet access.

His company’s live online one-to-one video classes are now enabling many foreigners, including a taxi driver in Bolivia, to learn the language and its characters.

Founder and chief executive officer Rao operates eChineseLearning.com, China’s largest video-based online Chinese tutoring website. Since starting the operation last December, the website has signed up more than 400 overseas students ranging in age from four to 74 living in 42 countries. New student enrollment is growing at a two-digit rate month-on-month.

In eChineseLearning’s studio, dozens of teachers’ present Chinese classes in front of computers, giving the office the look of a busy call centre.

Using the company’s self-developed teaching software, along with writing tablets and telephony like Skype, students in far away places can listen, talk to and see teachers, as well as the blackboards behind them. The one-on-one teaching model enables students to schedule lessons and choose course content themselves.

“Sometimes after I see a Chinese movie, I asked my tutor to talk about my favourite scenes, or when I plan go to a Chinese restaurant, I ask the tutor to teach me how to order Chinese food in Chinese,” said Gil Lan, a law professor in York University, Toronto, who has been studying Chinese on eChineseLearning for five months.

“The customised courses are more flexible and interesting, but only charge 50 yuan an hour, compared with C$40 (210 yuan) an hour at Toronto’s weekend Chinese schools,” he said, adding that it usually takes a year to finish a whole textbook in a Canadian community school, but only five months in his class on eChineseLearning.”

The growing popularity of eChinese-Learning has already provided work for 40 teachers, most of who majored in teaching Chinese as a foreign language.

Demand is so strong that the firm is now shorthanded and the shortage could become more acute as increasing numbers of foreigners want to learn Chinese.

The Economist magazine estimates that there are about 30 million foreigners across the world learning Chinese today.

Only about 80,000 foreigners were able to come to China to study the language, according to figures released by the Ministry of Education. Rao estimates the value of the Chinese language education market at US$1bil.

In the United States alone there are currently over 700,000 children of Chinese descent whose native language is English or another language.

These days they are showing growing interest in Chinese.

“It is not practical to start a Chinese school to cater to a small group, but an Internet-based system can do it,” said Rao.

In August eChineseLearning paired with Sina.com, which has over 1.4 million registered users and an average of 1.5 million daily page views in North America, to begin an educational channel to cash in on the largest Chinese Internet portal’s customer base.

The encouraging prospects of e-learning as well as the growing popularity of Chinese-language study, have prompted a number of venture capitalists to approach eChineseLearning.com and offer investment capital.

Rao is now considering branching out to second-tier cities like Tianjin and Xi’an and plans to recruit teachers locally to build a chain of low cost teaching centres.

“Teacher salaries account for the largest portion of our operational costs, but wages are lower in smaller cities compared to Beijing and Shanghai,” he said.

Rao was brought up in a household of educators. His father was the former deputy editor-in-chief of the People’s Education Press and his mother was an English teacher. During his college life in the United States from 2000 to 2002, Rao co-founded a weekend Chinese community school called the Colorado Springs Chinese Culture Institute.

After returning to China, he allied in 2003 with fellow Chinese Stanford graduates to start the video-sharing website UUMe.com.

As chief operating officer of Uume.com, Rao helped build a user base of millions and successfully attracted three rounds of venture capital investment from a number of firms including Legend Capital and ACCEL fund.

Video sharing is now growing in popularity in China but the market has become overcrowded.

Moving into the e-learning market as a pioneer – especially teaching Chinese language live online could be the niche.

I can't find the source, but I recall that Mandarin was listed as a popular course in the Michigan Virtual School last year or two years ago.

Tags: NACOL, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

More on Virtual Schooling in Wisconsin

Okay, I've spend some time over the holidays looking at the ruling in the Wisconsin case. In case you were wondering, you can access it at:

• Court of Appeals decision - note that the lower court decision is not available on the Internet
  

Before Christmas, I posted some thoughts about the decision itself - see Should NACOL Get Involved?. Also see Signing off virtual schools for a good legal overview of the case from a Wisconsin attorney and law professor.

During this time, we've had some more people on the blogsphere weigh in. Here are just some of the ones that I've seen:

• Are you properly licensed to teach your child? from Constructing Meaning
• Wisconsin Virtual Academy Revisited from Constructing Meaning
• More articles on the virtual school decision in WI from Situativity
• and many others I'm sure that weren't in my Bloglines...
  

It was also interesting to read an item posted by the Wisconsin Parents Association as a way to mobilize their members on this issue:

http://www.homeschooling-wpa.org/issues/2007-charter/

I think that her first two points under the important facts are indeed important to remember. The court did not rule that parents cannot teach their children. It ruled that a virtual school cannot receive funding for that students when the child is largely being taught by the parent. And the most important line of all falls into the second point:

"especially since money is a motivating factor"

As I indicated in my previous post (see Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin), the real issue here is that you have a school that is getting funding for work being done not by their own teachers, but by the parents. This is a form of glorified homeschooling, but someone is getting funded to do it (and not even the someone who is doing most of the work).

So please make sure you read this clearly, while I have some personal problems with some of the political motivations of some in the homeschooling movement (and these stem from my understandings based upon Michael Apple's work), I do believe that in some cases there are legitimate reasons parents choose the homeschooling option. I think legislation should reflect this reality and make it easy for parents to choose this option, while maintaining appropriate oversight to ensure that the child is being adequately educated.

Having said that, I do have a problem with a cyber school receiving public funding for the work that is largely being done by parents. If a parent decides to homeschool their child, they don't get funding to do so, why should some cyber school get those funds for doing almost the same job?

As a side note, I thought that the WPA did a good job with its history of virtual charter schools that they posted:

To increase profits, in recent years several curriculum providers have been marketing their virtual schools to school districts so districts rather than parents pay for the curriculums, which often cost over $1,000 per child per year. One such corporation is K12, Inc., originally headed by William Bennett, who was Secretary of Education under President Reagan. Bennett has fallen from favor and no longer heads K12, Inc. WPA opposed the establishment of such schools and testified at hearings in several school districts. (See WPA’s opposing public E-Schools.) Lake Mills School District considered and rejected a contract with K12, Inc., but in 2003, Northern Ozaukee School District signed on. Northern Ozaukee faced declining enrollment and wanted to increase enrollment, jobs, and its budget. (In its contract with Northern Ozaukee, K-12, Inc. agreed to cover court costs and attorneys’ fees resulting from lawsuits.)

Wisconsin has never had a statute saying that virtual charter schools are legal. From the beginning, these schools have relied on loopholes in statutes governing charter schools and open enrollment that were enacted before virtual charter schools came into existed and were not intended to authorize them.

Kind of reads like an indictment, doesn't it?

Tags: Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Should NACOL Get Involved?

Okay, we're talking about the Wisconsin case again. I noticed that the President and Vice-President of the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) posted this to one of their forms and a Yahoo! News Group earlier today.

NACOL is very concerned about the impact that the recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision may have on online learning in Wisconsin. To that end, NACOL is considering submitting an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief on behalf of all those interested in quality online learning in WI urging the State Supreme Court to take the case on appeal. The goal is to provide a way for Wisconsin’s diverse virtual education community to speak with one voice about the importance of online learning opportunities for Wisconsin students, without necessarily arguing the specific details of the case. NACOL sees this as an opportunity for NACOL and its Wisconsin members to play an important and inclusive leadership role on these issues. For more information, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wisconsin_Online_Learning_Community/

Okay, now I've already posted on this topic once - see Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin - and I have to be honest and say that I'm not sure that NACOL should be getting involved in this case at this level.

As I think that you will all know, I am a supporter of virtual school - a proponent if you will. However, I think that there is a legitimate case here and I'm not sure it does NACOL any good to go off and support the Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) simply because they are a cyber charter school - and to be honest I begin to question what exactly NACOL is standing for by taking this action.

If you look at the actual Court of Appeals decision you'll see that the case against WIVA is quite convincing. According to the appeal court decision, there were three main issues: where is the school located, what does it mean to attend a virtual school, and what teaching role can parents play in virtual schooling.

Dealing with the first issue, whether the district created a charter school that operates outside of the boundaries of the district itself. The WIVA argued that the school was located in the district because its administration and secretarial support were located in the district. The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) argued that most of the teachers hired by the virtual charter school and the majority of the students were located outside of the district, thereby the school was located outside of the district. The appeals court decided that the school existed both in the district and partly outside of the district based upon current state statutes.

On the second issue, what it meant to attend a school. The WEAC argued that to attend meant to physically go to a school, while the WIVA believed that to attend in a virtual sense meant where a student was enrolled. The court took the opinion that if the school was located, at least partially, outside of the district that this point was unnecessary as some student attended a school outside of the district (i.e., those who lived outside of the district), while others attended a school inside of the district (i.e., those who lived inside of the district).

It is worth noting on these two points that in their decision the court indicated that simple changes in the statutes by the legislature to clarify how these provisions - which were clearly intended for a brick and mortar world - would work when it comes to virtual schools. In several places the court laments about the lack of action by the legislature in dealing with this new form of schooling.

On the final issue, this appears to be where the case fell apart for the WIVA the most. In fact, the court reserved three pages for the first two questions, but took approximately the same amount of space to discuss this third issue - whether or not parent in the WIVA constituted teachers. Let me just quote from the decision...

The word “teach” is undefined in Wis. Stat. § 118.19, but DPI has promulgated a definition at Wis. Admin. Code § PI 34.01(59) (June 2004): “Teaching” means improving pupil learning by planning instruction, diagnosing learning needs, prescribing content delivery through classroom activities, assessing student learning, reporting outcomes to administrators and parents and evaluating the effects of instruction.

WIVA parents’ role found in a WIVA slide show: “fulfillment of attendance requirements, continuous progress with the K-12 curriculum, participation in regular teacher conference calls, monthly submission of student’s work samples, and participation in State testing programs.”

[WEAC argues a] WIVA parent performs activities that are undeniably teaching: leading the student through a lesson plan, answering questions and assessing student progress.

The District has nowhere disputed that a parent works one-on-one with a pupil, presenting the lesson, answering questions, and assessing progress. Instead, they simply highlight other parental tasks.

the District proposes that even if WIVA parents engage in “teaching,” the licensure statute applies only to “professional teachers”—the employees of a public school. The argument is essentially that a “teacher” is generally understood to be a professional employed to teach and, thus, the statute does not regulate WIVA’s parents, even if they serve the same role as teachers, because they are not paid.

We wish to emphasize that the issue in this case is not simply what the parents do, but what the school requires them to do in order for the school to function. We underscore that no one is suggesting that a parent assisting his or her child to whatever extent the parent finds necessary is “illegal.” The question is not whether and how a parent may assist his or her child with schoolwork; rather, it is whether the District can establish a public school, using public funds, that relies upon unlicensed individuals as the primary teachers of the pupils. The problem is not that the unlicensed WIVA parents teach their children, but that they “teach in a public school.”

we are convinced beyond doubt that the activities of the WIVA parents constitute “teaching in a public school.”

These quotes lay out the crux of the case from my own personal standpoint. I agree with the court in that the legislature should take steps to amend what it means for a school to operate and what it means for a student to attend to account for the advent of online learning.

However, on this third point I don't believe that the statute should simply be updated to accommodate the virtual school movement. If, as the court found, a school requires that parents act as teachers it should not receive the same funding as a brick and mortar school where the parents are free to help a child with their schoolwork but not required because that is the job of the teachers employed by the school.

In the same way that a parent who choses to home school their child does not receive public education funding to support their own instruction, neither should this virtual school receive the same public funding as a brick and mortar school when they require parents to teach. As the court stated: "The question is not whether and how a parent may assist his or her child with schoolwork; rather, it is whether the District can establish a public school, using public funds, that relies upon unlicensed individuals as the primary teachers of the pupils."

Having said that, I would encourage the legislature to amend the funding formula to reflect the reality of this form of virtual schooling. By this I mean add a provision so that virtual schools where parents are required to perform the role of teachers receive a smaller per student allocation because the licensed teachers of the school are only doing a percentage of the work that would be done by a brick and mortar (or even traditional virtual school model that has developed in most states).

And this is where NACOL should invest its energies in my opinion, lobby the legislature to make these changes and not standing up for a virtual school simply because it is a virtual school.

Tags: NACOL, Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Problems Are Brewing in Wisconsin

These two articles were posted at entries in one of the discussion forums at the NACOL website. The first....

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Column: Why is union out to kill a good school?
December 7, 2007

"They could learn a lot from our teachers about a new way of teaching," Rose Fernandez told a radio interviewer.

She's a parent at Wisconsin Virtual Academy, the Fredonia-based online public charter school. She was talking about the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers union whose slogan is, "Every kid deserves a great school."
WEAC, not in a learning mood, had just gotten a court to outlaw Fernandez's kids' great school. About 850 children who attend the school are now left hanging after Wednesday's Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision. The school will stay open while it appeals, but a further loss would endanger every virtual school in the state.
Why would the teachers union try to kill a high-performing public school?
Because, said a written statement from the union, laws written for traditional schools can't be applied to virtual schools. We need new laws to "make them accountable."

Accountable? Such as testing students and reporting results? They do that. The academy's scores on state tests are just dandy - exactly in line with schools in Cross Plains, Mukwonago and Fond du Lac that the academy families I talked to would otherwise use. Ninety-two percent of the academy's students score proficient or advanced in reading.

And if the virtual school doesn't satisfy, parents can put their kids back in the school down the block. Yet it's the virtual school that may get closed. Have you heard of the union suing to close any brick-and-mortar schools that are failing?
All irrelevant, argued the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. It sought, with the union, to close the academy. Whether the school successfully teaches is beside the point, said the department's lawyer. Whether it fits the state's regulatory model is what counts. The court agreed.

This makes Wisconsin unique, says Susan Patrick, who heads the North American Council for Online Learning. She used to head educational technology at the U.S. Department of Education. She says to her knowledge, no state has shut down virtual schools over a teacher licensing dispute.

That's the core of WEAC's argument, that because parents help students with lessons that are planned, delivered, tested and evaluated by licensed teachers, the parents are teaching without a license.

About 92,000 students attend 173 virtual schools in 18 states, says Patrick. Nowhere else, she says, have courts ruled virtual schools illegal. "Wisconsin is kind of unique," she says.

Nonetheless, says the court, the law is the law. This is admirably constructionist, though the judges also said laws must be "tempered and clarified" by regulators or the state would be banning everyone's unlicensed parent volunteers and teachers aides. It's fair to ask why regulators then took such an obtuse view on this particular school, arguing parents were such detriments that the whole thing should be closed.

We can guess why WEAC says that. It's because the union isn't interested in making the model work.

The court acknowledged the law could be read as meaning that anyone without a license - such as parents - be kept at arm's length from classrooms. The virtual academy is a paradise of parental involvement. The union aims to shut it down anyhow.

If it succeeds, it will disemploy its own people, since the academy's teachers are dues-paying union members. The union persisted anyhow. It did this because it cannot bear to see success for a kind of schooling in which there's about one teacher for every 42 students, not when WEAC's aim for years has been to see more teachers hired even as enrollments statewide begin to fall.

The union says it wants laws to govern virtual schools. Yet when such a law worked its way through the Legislature last session, WEAC opposed it, eventually tugging on Gov. Jim Doyle's leash to get him to veto it. The law embodied the ideas of a panel of experts that state schools superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster convened. Her agency nevertheless opposed the bill and has apparently offered no guidance on a replacement.

This is the teachers union, and the officials beholden to it, in action. They're torpedoing a good school and, possibly, a whole branch of school innovation. One in five students nationwide will take an online class in college, says Patrick. Michigan now requires all children to take at least one online class. Yet when a school here goes entirely online and spends four years evolving how to do it right, the union's reaction is to spend four years suing to shut it down. How dare WEAC use that slogan?

"Perhaps the legislation simply has not caught up with times and technology," wrote the court. If so, the Legislature needs to change that now. DPI and the union need to get new attitudes. And 850 kids need to know the great school they deserve is going to stay open.

Patrick McIlheran is a Journal Sentinel editorial columnist.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=694057

And the second...

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Editorial: A blow to innovation
The Legislature should ensure that online public schools can continue serving students in Wisconsin.

From the Journal Sentinel
Dec. 7, 2007
Wisconsin kids may be locked out of the virtual schoolhouse after a state Court of Appeals decision Wednesday that threatens the future of online learning for public schoolchildren. But the Legislature can fix the problem by crafting a law that makes clear that the state supports such alternative and innovative means of instruction.

The court ruled that the academy, run by the Northern Ozaukee School District, violated state laws governing teacher certification, charter schools and open enrollment. The court said the academy wasn't based in the Northern Ozaukee district, even though its administrators are in Fredonia, because students and teachers learn and work from their homes. The court also decided that parents, and not the certified teachers who oversee lessons via computer, are the primary instructors.

In effect, the court ruled that Wisconsin Virtual Academy is a turbocharged form of home schooling and that therefore "the problem is not that the unlicensed WIVA parents teach their children, but that they 'teach in a public school.' "

The ruling will be appealed, and should be. But it also should prompt a thorough debate in the Legislature about how best to encourage and fund online learning.

The use of open enrollment, in which state aid follows a student from one district to another, may not be the best funding mechanism for virtual schools. Each student who enrolled in another district took along $5,845 in state money during the last school year. Schools that don't have the expense of maintaining a building may not need as much as schools that do.

But this is precisely why the Legislature needs to craft a new law that allows state funding for virtual learning in an evenhanded and fair way. The open enrollment provision of state law never envisioned online academies. Nor did the law governing charter schools.

Virtual schools offer parents a credible alternative for students who don't do well in traditional settings. Judging from 2006 Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination scores, the kids attending Wisconsin Virtual Academy are thriving. They score at or above the state average in most subjects at nearly every grade level.

This sort of competition, also seen in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, has the potential to improve education in Wisconsin. The Legislature, as well as state Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster, must embrace such innovation instead of shrinking from it.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=694063

Now, as you know from past entries I have never been a big fan of charter schools - and in particular cyber charter schools. And I'll also state that beyond these two articles, I know little about this case.

Having said that, let me give my opinion. While I am largely against cyber charter schools, this is an example of the reason why. As far as I can tell from these two items, there are two main issues: parents/guardians seem to be doing a lot of the teaching in the model used by the Wisconsin Virtual Academy and there may be some rules about students living in one district being able to attend schools in other districts that are causing problems.

For me, this is another example (along with the litany that we have seen in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania) of a cyber charter school not following the rules and regulations created by the state. In the cases of Ohio and Pennsylvania these problems tended to stem from reporting and testing - which appear to not be problems in this case.

Again for me, the parents as teachers is the more problematic issue of the two that are outlined here. I think that the students living in one district, but "attending" school in another district is a funding issues - which for the districts involved is a big deal, but something that could easily be solved with some regulations. As for the teaching issue, I understand that in almost any educational environment parents have a role to play in assisting, supplementing, and even correcting the "teaching" that goes on in the classroom (a brick and mortar one or a virtual one). The problem that I have with these models, as they are described on the WVA's website - http://www.wivcs.org/, are that they are largely independent learning models or home schooling models where the parent/guardian has access to a teacher and the student still gets tested and eventually a grade from a state-based school.

There is little difference between the model used by WVA and if I were to design a bunch of social studies instructional CD-Roms and DVDs to sell, and as a condition of the sale I (as a certified social studies teacher) would grade all of the students work and be able to answer any questions the parent/guardian or student had. This is almost the exact same thing as what the WVA provides, only they throw in a computer on loan and deliver it over the Internet instead of on CD-Rom or DVD.

Yes, teaching and teachers are the real problem here. For example, at most virtual school across Canada and the United States there has been an understanding that virtual school teaching takes more time than traditional classroom teaching and in many instances teachers have their classes capped at 20 or 25 students and teachers are only allowed to carry a load that is 50% to 80% what they would carry in the classroom. As a classroom teacher in Newfoundland and Labrador I would have between 150 and 180 student any given year over the six courses that I taught - sometimes more as this is based upon an average of 25-30 per course. The virtual high school in my province has long had a cap of 80-90 students per virtual school teacher - because they recognise that a virtual school teacher with 80-90 students will spend as much time on their professional obligations as a classroom teacher with 150-180 students.

Now we learned from the articles above that WVA has 850 students from grades K-8. If you look at their website under the information about their teachers they have 13 classroom teachers (i.e., responsible for specific grade levels) and two special education teachers. If you exclude the special education teachers that would be 65 students per teacher, if you include the special education teachers it is still 57 students per teacher. Each of these teachers are responsible for:

Language Arts, Math, Science, History, Music, and Art are the core courses. There will also be other courses in the appropriate grade levels, such as Physical Education.

Now by my count that is six courses, not counting the other courses like Physical Education and such. In order to compare this to the Newfoundland and Labrador example I used above, you take the number of students each teacher is responsible for per course and times it by the number of courses they are responsible for. If you do that you will find that a teacher with the WVA is responsible for 342 to 390 students (again, depending on whether or not you count the special education teachers in your figures).

I've never taught elementary school before, but a class or 57 to 65 students does seem a bit much. Also, most other virtual schools find that teaching online take more time and more work than teaching in a classroom, and we hear all the time that having 30 and 35 and 40 students in a class is simply too man for one teacher to manage and ensure that each student is getting a quality education and not falling through the cracks. Do you see the problem here?

This is why I think that the teachers' union and the state have legitimate concerns when it comes to the amount of teaching that is done by people who have no training on being teachers. The numbers simply mean that the WVA teachers can't spend as much time per student as even a classroom teacher would. If these kids are being successful, and their performance on the state assessments would seem to indicate they are, who is doing the teaching? We all know the answer, and this is why the judge sided against the WVA. If this is basically a glorified version of homeschooling, with some customer support from qualified professionals, than the state dollars responsible for the education of that child shouldn't be taken from one school and given to this cyber school because they aren't providing the an equivalent experience - they are relying upon the parents to do it for them.

Tags: Wisconsin, court case, Wisconsin Virtual Academy, virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education

Cyber Charter Schools

Okay this will appear in the "Virtual Schooling in the News" feature at the end of the week, but I felt the need to draw attention to this a little more than simply including it there. This particular item came to me from my Yahoo! news alert for cber school. Unfortunately, because Yahoo! uses this search tool as if it is cyber+school and not "cyber school" I don't get much useful in that alert - in fact most of it is usually about cyber bullying. But this one was interesting.

Cyber charters: We are public schools
By SHARON WILLIAMS For The Evening Sun
Article Launched: 06/22/2007 08:49:28 AM EDT

A recent article in the Evening Sun outlined the campaign led by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) against public cyber charter schools in communities across the state. Unfortunately, it was full of many of the same old myths about cyber schools.

For years the PSBA has led the charge against public cyber schools, filing multiple lawsuits, supporting legislation that would severely cut funding, and spreading misinformation and distortions about cybers.

Cyber charter schools are as accountable as both the Hanover and the South Western School districts and more. They are public schools designated with the same local education agency status as school districts, thus are held to the same accountability standards, audits and state reporting requirements as every other school district. Public cybers are also required to undergo several audits unique to charter schools.

The state of Pennsylvania, through the Department of Education (PDE), provides full oversight and implements accountability measures for all cyber charter schools. PDE, as the authorizing agency for cyber charter schools, has the authority to conduct reviews and audits at any time. If a cyber charter school is not succeeding, their charter could be revoked by PDE and their school closed - a level of accountability school district's never face.

All of this information is available at the PDE or by request, as required by law. Those who
say they aren't sure what cybers are doing simply do not want to know. If this is indeed the case, local residents should expect more from their elected school board members.

A closer look at academic achievement shows public cyber charter schools are performing well and meeting almost all of the AYP academic performance targets.

Last year, Pennsylvania's eleven public cyber charter schools met 42 of 45 AYP academic performance targets. These numbers are especially strong when you consider that cyber charter schools often take high numbers of students who come in one or many grade levels behind because their local school failed to meet their education needs.

PSBA argues that cyber charter schools funding should be dramatically reduced.

They advocate passage of a bill (HB 446) that would arbitrarily cut cyber charter schools funding upwards of 60 percent, which would force these schools to close. PSBA understates the significant costs associated with operating full-time, full-service public cyber schools and ignores studies that refute their assertions. For instance, a 2006 independent report prepared by Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates on behalf of the Bell South Foundation titled, Costs and Funding of Virtual Schools, determined that the "the operating costs of online programs are about the same as the operating costs of a regular brick and mortar school," and concluded that actual costs for full-time cyber schools range from $7,200 to about $8,300 per student.

You will see pigs fly before you see the PSBA advocate for more burdensome regulations, red tape and massive funding cuts for public schools. Except, of course, if the public schools are charters.

As nice as it may sound to the PSBA members that it is "their money" going to cyber charter schools, the parents of kids enrolled in cyber charter schools, all hard-working taxpayers themselves, are quick to remind them that the funding is designated for their children's education only, and not for anything else.

Ultimately, the PSBA's arguments over money, power and control is a mask to what they really oppose: school choice for parents. Cyber charter schools continue to grow because parents and kids are choosing to enroll, and they want cyber charter schools available as a public school option. And that is the real rub for the PSBA.

Unlike traditional public schools, not a single child enrolled in cyber charter schools are assigned to attend because of where they live. Every family in one of our cyber charter schools is with us because they exercised their right to choose our school. When they enroll, the school districts no longer have any responsibility for the education or oversight of those students. They can concentrate on the kids in their schools and need not spend any time or energy worrying about our students. We'll take good care of them. If we don't, they are free to leave, go back to their locally assigned school and take their funding with them. That is the ultimate accountability.

If the PSBA wants to put the interests of our children first, then they will cease the relentless and misleading attacks on cyber charter schools, respect the education choices of our families, and end their campaign to strangle our schools out of existence.

Sharon Williams is currently the Head of School and Chief Administrative Officer of the Agora Cyber Charter School. For more information: http://www.agora.org/

What I found most interesting about this was that, at least in this particular publication the only one that stodd up for (or at least the only one that was published) was the administrator of a cyber charter school. But hey, I used to be involved in politics and someone writing on behalf of the candidate or elected official is nothing new, but at least in politics we would usually ask someone not so closely associated with the political individual involved to write those kind of pieces. If I were Sharon Williams, I would have had one of the parents of a student at my cyber school write this but that is neither here nor there.

Let's take a look at some of the things that Ms. Williams has to say... Yes, charter schools are public schools. However, they are not as independent or virtuous as she would have us believe. Charter schools are one of the ways that conservatives and right of center individuals have found to circumvent the traditional public education system. Since the 1980s and the panic created (or should I say manufactured) by the A Nation at Risk report, conservatives in the United States have been looking for ways to dismantle the traditional public education system - charter schools, including cyber charters, are one of their latest attempts.

There are also a reason why charter schools, and in particular cyber charter schools, have a reputation for not having to meet the same state requirements or not being as cost efficient as the traditional public schools. According to a 2000 American Teachers Federation document, "eighteen states either release charter schools from meeting state standards or allow charter school students to avoid taking state assessments. " I'm not sure how many of these eighteen still allow this, but if you don't have to meet the same requirements that a public school has to meet, they you aren't playing by the same set of rules and shouldn't be compared to one another (it is like comparing apples and oranges - a theme I'll use a lot in this post). I should note that if you did want to compare these apples and oranges, in a recent report commissioned by the Department of Education under the Bush administration (who are also in favour of dismantling the traditional public education system), public school students performed as well as charter school students and private school students (a real blow to their push for charter schools and their private school voucher initiative).

Also, in the past in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, where cyber charters have flourished, there have been major problems with the misreporting of data and the mismanagement of public funds. Is this still going on? At some level, probably - but I would say the same for the traditional public school system and even the private school system. Do these problems plague all cyber charter schools? Probably not, but over the past five to six years they have been prone to it and have made some interesting and frequent headlines because of those problems.

I should also point out Ms. Williams mentions the Costs and Funding of Virtual Schools and mentions that it claims that "the operating costs of online programs are about the same as the operating costs of a regular brick and mortar school." While the report does make this statement, it is important to note the context around this particular statement. In the preceding sentences the authors of the report indicate that this claim is basically applicable to year two plus - meaning after the first year of operation. The need to create or lease a learning or course management system, to create or lease actual course content, etc. - all of which are costs incurred in the first year are not factored into this claim. After this claim the authors indicate that the brick and mortar costs do not include the spending on capital costs, such as the construction and maintenance of the school building. So basically the report excludes the necessary infrastructure in both online and face to face settings, so you have to really wonder if they are actually comparing apples and apples.

But let's actually look at this report a little closer (beyond methodology, which I believe is fundamentally flawed). The following groups are listed as being ones consulted for this report:

• Branson School Online
• Colorado Legislative Staff
• Colorado Online Learning
• Colorado Virtual Academy
• Connections Academy
• Florida Virtual School
• Georgia Virtual School
• Idaho Association of School Administrators
• Louisiana Virtual School
• Minnesota Senate Staff
• Monte Vista School District (Colorado)
• National Conference of State Legislatures
• North American Council for Online Learning
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
• Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)
• Texas Education Agency
• Texas Tech University
• Vanourek Consulting Solutions
• University of California College Prep Online

Interestingly I count eight virtual or cyber school organizations, three consultants or organizations that have been favourable to virual schooling in the past, three political or legislative bodies, one university, and only four non-political bodies that represent public educational organizations. Further the report indicates:

The first draft of this report was reviewed by a sub-group of participants, along with the Michigan Virtual High School. The review was coordinated by John Watson of Evergreen Consulting Associates, who then revised the report based on reviewers’ comments. The final report reflects the thoughts of the meeting participants, reviewers, and authors.

Let me begin by stating that I have a great deal of respect of John Watson, I've met him a couple of times at the annual Virtual School Symposium meetings. However, the report that states that virtual schooling is as cost effective as brick and mortar schooling talked to eleven online learning bodies, but only four brick and mortar bodies. It was reviewed by a virtual school and then revised by a consultant who has written a great deal about virtual schools - most of it in a positive fashion. I'm not saying that the report is wrong, but you have to start to ask yourself is it credible. Let's even look at their conclusions...

According to Ms. Williams, in the article she indicates that the authors of this report state that the "actual costs for full-time cyber schools range from $7,200 to about $8,300 per student." On page 13 it indicates that the cost of brick and mortar schools range from $5,851 to $9,801, with a national average of $7,727. So the cost is comparable between the national brick and mortar average and the cyber school range. But is it really? In this table on page 13, it only lists the cost per pupil from eight states (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, New Hampshire, South Carolina,Texas and Vermont) and then provides the national average. From that list, I see seven states that allow for charter schools:

• AZ - $5,851
• CO - $6,941
• FL - $6,213
• ID - $6,011
• NH - $7,935
• SC - $7,017
• TX - $6,771

That gives me an average of $6,677, which is well below the range for cyber schools. So compared to the national average it is comparable, but what if we only used states that allowed for cyber charter schools, would it still be comparable? In the table on page 13, Vermont - $9,806 is included. But Vermont isn't one of the forty states that allow for charter schools. And according to data from 2005-06 published by the National Charter School Research Project, eight of those forty states do not have any charter schools. So what happens to that national average if we only include the thirty-two states that do have charter schools or even the forty states that allow for them? Does it lower the national average below that $7,200 (i.e., the lower limit of the cyber school range)? I don't know because I don't have that information. But again, are we really comparing apples and apples or are we really comparing apples and oranges.

Also, a big issue for me is what do you do with Florida? Florida is the only state in the US where the state-wide virtual school is treated the same as any other school district, so they get funding based upon their full-time student enrollment the same as the brick and mortar schools do. So do you exclude Florida because the system is designed to be equal? Do you somehow control for it? Do you complete two sets of analyses, one with Florida and one without - explaining the unique situation in Florida? These are methodologies questions that the report doesn't answer.

Am I saying that this report is wrong or presenting a false picture? No. I simply can't answer that question because I don't have the information to answer all of the questions that I have raised here. Do I look skeptically at this report because of all of these questions that I have raised? Yes, most definitely.

Getting back to Ms. Williams and her defence of cyber charter schools, as I mentioned in a recent comment to Bill Tucker I am not in favour of charter schools or cyber charter school. I believe that they are a conservative policy designed to undermine the traditional public school system. Do cyber charter schools get a bad rap, as Ms. Williams indicates? Probably. Do they deserve that bad rap because of the large scale mismanagement of public funds and failure to report student performance data in a number of highly publicized cases in Pennsylvania and Ohio in particular? Yes.

Tags: virtual school, cyber school, charter school, high school, education