Re: Missouri Virtual Public School

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

Here is what the bill says:

"For purposes of calculation and distribution of state school aid, pupils enrolled in a virtual school shall be included in the pupil enrollment of the school district in which the pupil physically resides. The virtual school shall report to the district of residence the following information about each pupil served by the virtual school: name, address, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, limited English proficiency status, special education needs, and the number of courses in which the pupil is enrolled. The virtual school shall promptly notify the resident district when a pupil discontinues enrollment."

Under this set-up, students enroll in the virtual school (for all or some of their classes.) The virtual school reports basic information about the student to the district of residence. The student is considered to be part of the total pupil enrollment of that district. So far, so good. But here's where things go awry:

1) Which entity is responsible for overseeing that each student is learning, the district of residence or the virtual school?
2) If the district of residence, how is this oversight accomplished? How is it reported? To whom? By what means? With what regularity?
3) If the virtual school, how is this oversight accomplished? How is it reported? To whom? By what means? With what regularity?
4) Assuming that students in virtual schools must take the MAP test and be included in AYP calculations, which entity, the district of residence or the virtual school, is accountable for instances where students are not making AYP?
5) If the district is accountable, can school districts be held accountable for the academic performance of students they are not actually teaching?
6) If the virtual school is accountable, can AYP sanctions be applied to the virtual school?
7) If AYP sanctions do apply to the virtual school, and if the virtual school fails to make AYP for two years in a row, then -- by federal law -- students must be given the opportunity to transfer to another school within the district that is not on the "needs improvement" list. Where would students enrolled in the virtual school transfer to?
8) Continuing with this line of thought, if the virtual school fails to make AYP for three years in a row, would virtual students be eligible for supplemental educational services as their peers in physical settings are?
9) If after four years of failing to make AYP, what would happen to the virtual school? Would the same penalties apply to it that apply to physical buildings?
10) If after five years, could the virtual school be taken over by the state and converted into a charter school, as per the terms of Year Five sanctions under NCLB?
11) Will it be the duty of the district administrative officers to oversee these students? If so, this goes far beyond the typical job description of district administrative staff, who are normally charged with administrative oversight, not individual student oversight. Moreover, who will oversee the operation of the Missouri Virtual Public School itself? Where will it be located? How will it be constituted?

It might make sense to offer courses to rural students that would not be otherwise available, but it makes little sense to me to offer a primary and elementary education solely via the Internet.

I spoke to folks at DESE and strongly encouraged them and the bill's sponsors to conduct a pilot of the Missouri Virtual Public School for high school students only. Pending the outcome of the pilot, further steps can be taken to implement a revised/improved model. However, enacting the Missouri Virtual Public School into law with no proof of concept, no user data, and so many issues left unresolved is, in my opinion, very bad public policy.

Peter Campbell


On Mar 5, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Eric Crump wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up, Peter.
>
> I've been looking into this legislation myself. Our state
> representative is on the House committee that reviewed it and held a
> hearing a few weeks ago. Apparently there has been little opposition,
> though I've seen rumblings of concern in the home school community.
>
> Rep. Aull, who is a former district superintendent here in Marshall,
> said he's cautiously supportive, mainly because enrollment will be
> done through districts, districts will still get a (small) portion of
> the funding allotted for any of their students who attend the
> v.school, and the total enrollment will be limited in order to ensure
> the v.school doesn't compete with home districts and so it will be
> easier to monitor quality of education offered.
>
> I talked to the deputy commission for Department of Elementary and
> Secondary Education and he said oversight would be done by the state
> board of education. He also indicated that the state was carefully
> studying the v.schools in 14 or so other states to learn from their
> experiences.
>
> I don't know that this will qualify as a charter school. It's
> definitely intended to be a limited alternative, only for those
> students whose circumstances and interests make it a viable choice.
>
> I'm going to keep watching this to see how the implementation develops
> because the bill, as is usually the case, doesn't get into the details
> that can make all the difference.
>
> --Eric Crump