why cyber schools aren't “good” or “bad” chris carnahan facilitator for secondary...

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.