Why Cyber Schools Aren't “Good” or “Bad”

Chris CarnahanFacilitator for Secondary Education, Central PA Digital Learning Foundation

Doctoral Candidate, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Overview

• Outline of Online Education

• Why Students Choose Online

• Achievement/Failure Causes

• Attrition• PA Specifically• Money• Special Education• AYP• Evaluation

What is a Cyber Education?

• Supplemental, District Based, Consortiums, & Cyber Charter (Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark 2009)

• Programs Vary – state to state, district to district

• 700,000 students & 18% Growth (Picciano & Seaman 2007)

• Technology delivery is connecting fiber

Groups of Interest

• Parents/Students– Seeking alternatives

• Teachers– Focus on learning outcomes

• School Entities (Districts)– Provide alternatives & Diverting Funds

Why Students Choose Cyber

• Allows personalization– Doesn’t have constraints to serve masses– Customized Learning

• Parents have direct control• Supplement

– Additional Course Offerings– Credit Recovery/Advancement

Intrinsic Motivation

• Structured – Connection to Certified Teachers– Control Over Exposure (Religion)

• Engaging – Computer associated with Entertainment

(Wijekumar, Meyer, Wagoneer, & Ferguson, 2006)

Extrinsic Motivation

• Disenfranchisement with a school or district– Curricular– Social conflicts

• Limited Teachers/Seats/Time• Supplement for purpose

– Graduation, College Entrance, Scholarships

Reasons contd.

• Sports• Social

– Bullying– Arguments– Environment

• Religion

• Medical• Pregnancy• Family• Need to work• Run/Hide

Achievement & Failure

• Parental Support– There is no teacher in the room

• Need for digital connection– Substitute social interaction

Parental Involvement

• Support & Monitor– Positive or Negative influence

• Duties– Parent = On Task– Teacher = Content

• Performance & Progress easily tracked

Decentralized Learning

• High self-efficacy correlates to better achievement (DeTure, 2004)

• Provide social interaction– Academic work– Social

• Creates a community

Technology

• Computer Failures• Proper training & support• Identifying at risk students

Issues with Attrition

• Time Management• Student/Parent Misconceptions• Freedom vs. Structure• Grace periods/no credit enrollments (Roblyer,

2006)

Management

• Self pacing (no hard deadlines)• Time management (Podoll & Randle, 2005)

• Teacher is the Coach• Learners must pull information, not a push

model

Misconceptions

• Thought it was a game/entertainment• No Screening – Public Schools• Inclusion of learners w/ disabilities

Discrepancies

• 28 days to stay or go (FLVS)– Still a “dropout”

• Dropout Rates– 10% (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2008)

– 70% (Roblyer, 2006)

• Selection of High Achieving Students

Freedom vs. Structure

• Balance independence/interaction– Failure from lack of teacher interaction (O’dwyer,

2007)

• Desire collaboration– Lack support/Technologies

• Requiring face to face contact increases retention– Decreases freedoms (Blomeyer, 2002

PA - What is a “Cyber School”

• 12 Schools, 22,000 Students• Independent SD’s• Innovation/Non-traditional methods• FT Students K-12 (Pre K)• Different Modes of Delivery

– Synchronous/Asynchronous

Staffing

• Each has a Board of Directors & CEO• Only 75% of teachers must be certified

– No findings on the impact• Part-time/Full-time

Funding

• Why do traditional schools dislike cybers?– $– $– $

Brick/Mortar Funding

State47%

Federal 9%

Local44%

Where SD’s Money Comes From

**From Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009

Cyber School Funding

**From Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009

Discrepancy in FundingSchool District

Non-special Education Expenditures per ADM

Special Education Expenditures per ADM

Hazleton Area SD $6,492.62 $16,960.26

Northwestern SD $6,521.98 $13,380.78

Tuscarora SD $6,668.21 $14,852.78Cheltenham Township SD $14,193.30 $32,951.72

Lower Merion SD $15,973.59 $40,220.98

Jenkintown SD $16,249.06 $32,108.39

**08/09 funding from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/charter_school_funding/8661

Extra Curricular

• Most cybers offer field trips/social activities

• Home School Extra Curricular– Can Still Participate in Sports

• Cyber reimburses school for cost

After Graduation from Cyber

• Higher Education• Employment

• Military – Does not recognize - 10% Rule– No data, using home school explanation

Special Education

• 08-09 – Enrollment– Nearly 2700 Students– Cyber School Avg. 15.41% (State 15.2%)– Range 3.3% to 24.5%

Disabilities

• Disabilities Reported **– Autism, ED, Mental Retardation, Hearing

Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, & Speech or Language Impairment

**Means over 40 students in school

Special Education contd.

• How are needs being met?– Support Services – IU’s– Modified Curriculum

CS AYP StatusPA CYBER CS  Made AYPCentral PA Digital Made AYP

21ST CENTURY CYBER CS WarningPA Virtual Making Progress: in Corrective Action IPA Leadership Making Progress: in Corrective Action ICommonwealth Connections Academy CS Corrective Action IACHIEVEMENT HOUSE CS Corrective Action IPA Distance Learning CS Corrective Action II 1st YearSUSQ-CYBER CS  Corrective Action II 2nd Year AGORA CYBER CS  Corrective Action II 1st YearPA Learners Online Corrective Action II 3rd Year

Missing Research

• Largely Anecdotal• US Dept of Ed – online K-12 analysis (2010)

– Zero research on Special Education• Focus on Policy not academic outcomes

(Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009)

• Research is lagging behind practice• Limited research/rapid deployment (Beldarrian,

2006)

Research Questions

• What Model of online education achieves the best learner outcomes?

• Should a screening process be in place, knowing that there are specific characteristics that are associated with success?

Questions & Comments

What you really stayed for…

Act 48 Code: GL073146

References• Barbour, M., & Mulcahy, D. (2008). How are they doing?: Examining student achievement in

Virtual Schooling. Education in Rural Australia , 63-74.• Blomeyer, R. (2002). Online Learning for K-12 Students: What do we know now? North

Central Regional Educational Laboratory , 1-20.• Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and Practice in K-12 Online

Learning: A Review of Open Access Literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning .

• DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive Style and Self-Efficacy: Predicting Student Success in Online Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education , 21-38.

• Florida Virutal School. (2010). Retrieved 3 18, 2010, from http://www.flvs.net/Pages/default.aspx

• Huerta, L., d'entremont, C., & Gonzalez, M. (2006). Cyber Charter Schools: Can Accountability Keep Pace with Innovation? Phi Delta Kappan , 23-30.

• O'Dwyer, L., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A Study of the Effectiveness of the Louisiana Algebra I Online Course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 289-306.

• Podoll, S., & Randle, D. (2005). Building a Virtual High School....Click By Click. T H E Journal , 14-19.

• Roblyer, M. (2006). Online High-School Programs that Work. Phi Delta Kappan , 55-63.