Week 3 Reflection

Blog reflection: What did you learn this week that struck you as particularly important or interesting? Has your thinking changed as a result of what you learned this week?

On State Virtual Schools:

One of the big ah-ha moments this week was when I began examining the other virtual schools that my peers had profiled (Wetpaint WIKI, Google Spreadsheet) and realized what a wide distinction there is among different schools and different states. There is clearly no standardization today for the types of offerings, the funding sources, the target audiences or even though teaching methodologies. The other point, which I have mentioned before, is that this is clearly a State by State initiative. While providing a free public education to all is a national priority, there is no national program for virtual schooling. If there was, or maybe when there is, then more of the benefits of virtual schooling can be realized. Students will truly be able to take virtual courses with any number of “expert” teachers and choose from any number of offerings to meet their own needs.

The Keeping Pace article highlights that one of the main benefits of full-time “multi-district” programs is geographic reach allowing “students to enroll across district lines” but unwritten is that they may enroll across “district lines” within the same State. But not across States.

On Charter and For-Profit Virtual Schools:

I enjoyed researching AccelerateU this week, largely because it is one of only 4 virtual schools identified by NACOL Online Clearinghouse as operating within New York State. Of the four, it was clearly the most comprehensive. However, as I dug deeper, it became apparent that the school is not open to all New York State students but only to certain districts/regions within the state. This seems to be a running theme and it makes me wonder how “fair” virtual schooling is, if it is not available to all students. Are we not offering an equal education for all?

In reading the Authorizing Matters issue briefs (Aug, Sep), I was a bit confused at first, not knowing exactly what an “authorizer” was. But, some of the messages were clear. In August, the section on “For Whom the Mouse Clicks” had me stop and wonder whether I was missing something. E.g. the mention of “high-mobility” students as good candidates for virtual schooling, such as those from military families, makes sense if they can truly stayed enrolled in one program throughout their educational years, but at what school can this happen? What happens when they move to a different State? It seems that equal access to a high quality education can happen regardless of the students location, but in the schools I researched, even the charter or for-profit ones, there still seemed to be a geographic limitation.

I was also surprised that virtual schools do not have more students with disabilities enrolled, and that schools face difficulties with this population. I would have thought a virtual scenario would actually help enhance education for some of these students.

In the September review, I wondered how things like “seat-time” equate to virtual classrooms. I’m not sure what “October count day” is but I don’t see why attendance in a virtual classroom wouldn’t be counted by the amount of participation a student contributes in an asynchronous mode, or the amount of times “attended” in a synchronous mode. I do agree that educational technology requires real expertise and resources in these new virtual schools, as this is largely the infrastructure of the school vs. bricks and mortar. Finally, I think it was an enlightening point that the authors made that much of a virtual school is still “oddly unvirtual”. There are always overhead costs involved and virtual schools are no exception.

Lastly, the question of funding virtual schools was an area that I had not really considered to this point. I’m still not sure exactly how funding works even in the traditional public schools, except that it comes largely from taxes. I recognize that virtual courses, especially those that could – in the future – cross state lines, would introduce a wrinkle into the funding aspect. However, it is something that really does need to be addressed. I learned that principals feel that they have some lack of control in this situation and this is something that will require education for principals, as well as teachers and other administrators, to overcome. I also understand the logic behind not passing on costs to students who take virtual courses to fill their “normal academic load” but I don’t agree that courses which are overload should be charged to the students. What if these courses are being overloaded to accelerate graduation, or because the student is not being challenged in their traditional school. These students shouldn’t suffer because their traditional program is not meeting their needs. I’m also not sure that I agree with the concern that former home-schoolers impact public education because a) how is it any different than a home-schooler or private school student who transfers to a traditional public school and b) why should they not be entitled to the same benefits? Finally, in the case of KVHS, they mention that they hire Kentucky-certified teachers to “support web-based delivery” of content they purchase from providers. This made me wonder whether the teachers are then really just faciliators of learning, and if so, isn’t that what we are asking traditional teachers to do as well? What is the direction that teaching is going in? How will it change over time as more and more courses are offered online?