Agora Cyber, ECOT, and thoughts on virtual schools

Two stories came out this week, one from Pennsylvania and one from Ohio related to virtual schooling (cyber schooling in PA).

In Pennsylvania, Agora is in trouble with the PA Dept of Education over accurate data.

In Ohio, ECOT is being questioned by the the Dept. of Ed in Ohio about recording of attendance (which equals funding).

Recently, K12 in their quarterly report announcement bragged about a 289 basis point increase in retention rates. It is unusual because it is an investment term and they are, in essence, describing students in terms of investments. One basis point is the equivalent of 1/100th of a percentage, meaning 289 basis points equals 2.89% increase. I guess 289 sounds better and larger than 2.89%. Now, if they are serving over 100,000 students, 289 (or 2.89%) is a decent increase until one remembers how many students are leaving annually (estimated around 35%, or 3500 basis points, to 50%, or 5,000 basis points). That creates a different perspective doesn't it.

I also did a search (multiple searches really) in an effort to try and find success stories related to virtual schooling (other than those put out by the schools themselves). Interestingly, I could not find one.

Where are the success stories?

I'm keeping the faith in virtual schooling but the light is dimming.

Perhaps now we can quit trying to rearrange the deck chairs and create a radically different model.

houston@figment-consulting.com

The problem with online schools . . .

In a recent article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Susan Patrick, head of International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL), disagreed with Nina Rees, head of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and her emerging belief that online schools should not be charter schools. 

According to Ms. Patrick, "The problem is not that online schools are getting authorized as charter schools. The problem is that the authorizers are not demanding adequate transparency, evidence of quality of work at a college-level ready and are not shutting down or intervening in poor performers."

While I agree with her rebuttal of Ms. Rees' assessment that online schools should not be charter schools, I disagree with her statement of what the problem is with online schools.

Transparency, evidence and intervention are not the problems. They play a role but solving them will not lead to successful online schools.

Now, contrast her opinion with a K12 press release addressing what they see as the problem, also quoted from the Cleveland Plain Dealer article.

"Many families choose online schools because they are fleeing a school or situation that wasn't working for their child, often in distress, or because of other reasons -- bullying, special needs, medical issues, social or emotional challenges, safety concerns, academic problems, etc."

According to K12 in the same release, "For many families, online schools are schools of last resort, the only available public school alternative, thus filling a critical need within the public education system."

Are online schools merely schools of last resort? If so, how would better transparency, evidence of quality and intervention improve them?

Perhaps Susan Patrick and K12 are both wrong.

Better oversight is not what is necessary. Correct oversight is. We need authorizers who understand not the current online model, but rather what the correct model should look like and how to achieve it. Transparency, evidence, and intervention are still being held up by a crumbling foundation. Authorizers need to understand how to construct a foundation that will support success in online schools.

Also incorrect is the idea that online schools are schools of last resort, as K12 would have you believe in their retort to ongoing criticism of their performance.

Perhaps that is the case for many K12 schools, but that has more to do with their messaging, marketing, and recruitment than it does with the reality of online schooling. If you are targeting students who have been bullied, students with medical issues, students with social or emotional challenges, offering them promises that cannot be kept, then the result is what you currently see going on with K12.

See my blog post here for my ideas on what a virtual school should look like -- Virtual School Manifesto: Nine Essential Ingredients.

And, finally, I would also disagree with Ron Packard's (founder and former CEO of K12) way of looking at it as he stated in the same article in supporting the idea he would not want to block students from enrolling in online schools, "Being in the school is a right. Staying in it is a privilege. That's how I believe you have to look at it."

Being in the school is not a right, it is a choice. Staying in it is not a privilege. It too is a choice.

Virtual schools who see both as choices have the opportunity and potential to recruit differently, enroll differently, retain differently, and serve differently.

So, what is the real problem with online schools? The current model is broken, and it is falling apart.

We have to re-imagine the virtual learning experience. It's time.

houston@figment-consulting.com

I'm giving up on virtual schools.

Recently the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), in conjunction with MATHEMATICA Policy Research and the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) released its findings on a national study of full-time, online schools.

The results of the findings were dismal. The report was released just prior to the annual conference of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, or iNACOL, which is going on this week in Orlando to tout the benefits of virtual learning and the impact it has had.

As for the report, there were quick responses from K12, ECOT (an Ohio virtual school), and others calling into question the validity of the findings, or taking issues with key aspects of it. K12 even published a more detailed analysis of the study itself taking issue with the study's lack of taking into account persistence, enrollment date, mobility, reasons for enrolling, and more. While most of their reasoning falls flat in my opinion, they do raise some valid points.

"I'm giving up on virtual schools." -- that's what a former colleague of mine used as a subject line in her email to me, after reading the report and sending me her thoughts on it.

Other words she used were "disgraceful" and "pitiful" as she laid out her argument for agreeing with the findings. It was a long email, and one where I could tell she had put great thought into it. More than likely, she wrote it, edited, and rewrote it. It was not quick and flippant but instead was one filled with deep emotion.

I am sure it deserved a response equal to its original standard. That is why I am also confident my reply disappointed her.

Dear (      ),

It's okay to give up on virtual schools. Just don't give up on virtual schooling.

Kind regards,

Houston

Figment Consulting

www.figment-consulting.com

Dr. James Woodworth, Senior Quantitative Research Analyst for CREDO at Stanford University, was quoted at the end of the study's press release. He said, "While the overall findings of our analysis are somber, we do believe the information will serve as the foundation for constructive discussions on the role of online learning in the K-12 sector."

An industry friend of mine and I are working now on either an article or series of articles (not sure just yet) related to Dr. Woodworth's belief in constructive discussions. Our hope is to put forth some ideas and suggestions on ways in which we can move forward -- at the policy level, oversight level, and at the school level.

At the heart of the report is what I have believed for a long time now -- the current model is broken. However, as I said to my friend via the email, don't give up on the concept. I haven't.

houston@figment-consulting.com