Questions Raised By Dr. Peter Campbell

The following are excerts from emails between Dr. Peter Campbell, Missouri State Coordinator, The National Assessment Reform Network, and Dr. Bert Schulte, Deputy Commisioner, DESE regarding HB 1275 and its implementation.

From Dr. Campbell to Dr. Schulte, March 04, 2006
"I'm writing to obtain information about HB 1275, the bill to create the Missouri Virtual Public School that is being considered in the MO state legislature. Dr. James Tice (copied) suggested I contact you.
As an educational technology advocate, I'm very excited about the possibility of enhancing kids' educations via technology, especially in rural areas that have limited access to more advanced subject matter. However, as a public school advocate, I'm troubled by the potential role these virtual schools may play in undermining public education.
Year 2 AYP sanctions under NCLB allow students to transfer from a school that is on the "needs improvement" list to another school within the district that is not on the list. However, since NCLB only allows transfer within the district, where are students going to go if all the schools in the district are on the list? Furthermore, where can students go if there is only one elementary or middle school in the district?
So under HB 1275, can students "transfer" to the Missouri Virtual Public School if their schools are placed on the "needs improvement" list? If virtual schools are used as options in the NCLB/AYP school transfer process, many students will benefit, but many more will be left behind. The research on distance education programs shows pretty clearly that certain types of students benefit from this environment, i.e, those that are more focused and self-directed with good time management skills. While a good percentage of the population of public school students fit this profile, a large number don't.
Of even greater concern is the extent to which private, for-profit entities will be involved in offering these services via the Internet with little to no accountability provisions built in. Is the Missouri Virtual Public school going to operate as a charter school? If so, how will it be managed? Missouri's experience and the rest of the country's experience with charters has been mixed at best. One of the more troubling aspects of charter schools is their lack of accountability. While this is troubling enough in brick and mortar institutions where students have face-to-face accountability, it is even more troubling when no such tangible aspect of accountability exists."

From Dr. Campbell to Dr. Schulte, March 06, 2006
"Bert, Thanks for your message. I read the bill and communicated my concerns to Representative Baker, the bill's sponsor in the House, last week. While I would certainly like to assist in the positive implementation of the program (pending passage), it's difficult for me to respond in a constructive manner when so much about the proposal is so abstract. Let me share some of my concerns.
According to the legislation, the oversight of each student enrolled in the virtual school will be carried out by the district in which the student physically resides. But how is the oversight of "virtual students" to occur if the district has no oversight mechanism established? Will it be left up to each district to come up with its own method? What if these methods don't work? How will we know if they are working or not?
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?
Finally, the legislation proposes to make the Missouri Virtual Public School available to children starting in Kindergarten. While it might make sense to offer courses to rural students that would not be otherwise available, it makes little sense to me to offer a primary and elementary education solely via the Internet.
Please note that I am a technology advocate, not a Luddite. But this proposal seems to stretch the function and promise of distance/virtual education beyond its capabilities. As you can see, there are very important questions that have not been sufficiently addressed. I believe that it is neither appropriate nor prudent to implement a program that has significant implications for children when so many details are being left up in the air. At the very least, a small-scale pilot program for high school students should be undertaken first before our children are subjected to programs and methods we are unsure of."

From Dr. Campbell to Dr. Schulte, March 06, 2006
"The issues of oversight and accountability still seem very much up in the air.
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?
In addition to the above questions, the questions I posed earlier are still unanswered. Here they are again: 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?
Finally, as I mentioned in my earlier message, 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.
If the above questions can be answered, then that would be very helpful. As for specific recommendations, I strongly encourage DESE 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."