Why Cyber Schools Aren't

1
Why Cyber Schools Aren't Good or Bad

• Chris Carnahan
• Facilitator for Secondary Education, Central PA
  Digital Learning Foundation
• Doctoral Candidate, Indiana University of
  Pennsylvania

2
Overview

• Outline of Online Education
• Why Students Choose Online
• Achievement/Failure Causes

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

3
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

4
Groups of Interest

• Parents/Students
• Seeking alternatives
• Teachers
• Focus on learning outcomes
• School Entities (Districts)
• Provide alternatives Diverting Funds

5
Why Students Choose Cyber

• Allows personalization
• Doesnt have constraints to serve masses
• Customized Learning
• Parents have direct control
• Supplement
• Additional Course Offerings
• Credit Recovery/Advancement

6
Intrinsic Motivation

• Structured
• Connection to Certified Teachers
• Control Over Exposure (Religion)
• Engaging
• Computer associated with Entertainment
• (Wijekumar, Meyer, Wagoneer, Ferguson, 2006)

7
Extrinsic Motivation

• Disenfranchisement with a school or district
• Curricular
• Social conflicts
• Limited Teachers/Seats/Time
• Supplement for purpose
• Graduation, College Entrance, Scholarships

8
Reasons contd.

• Sports
• Social
• Bullying
• Arguments
• Environment
• Religion

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

9
Achievement Failure

• Parental Support
• There is no teacher in the room
• Need for digital connection
• Substitute social interaction

10
Parental Involvement

• Support Monitor
• Positive or Negative influence
• Duties
• Parent On Task
• Teacher Content
• Performance Progress easily tracked

11
Decentralized Learning

• High self-efficacy correlates to better
  achievement (DeTure, 2004)
• Provide social interaction
• Academic work
• Social
• Creates a community

12
Technology

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

13
Issues with Attrition

• Time Management
• Student/Parent Misconceptions
• Freedom vs. Structure
• Grace periods/no credit enrollments (Roblyer,
  2006)

14
Management

• Self pacing (no hard deadlines)
• Time management (Podoll Randle, 2005)
• Teacher is the Coach
• Learners must pull information, not a push model

15
Misconceptions

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

16
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

17
Freedom vs. Structure

• Balance independence/interaction
• Failure from lack of teacher interaction
  (Odwyer, 2007)
• Desire collaboration
• Lack support/Technologies
• Requiring face to face contact increases
  retention
• Decreases freedoms (Blomeyer, 2002

18
PA - What is a Cyber School

• 12 Schools, 22,000 Students
• Independent SDs
• Innovation/Non-traditional methods
• FT Students K-12 (Pre K)
• Different Modes of Delivery
• Synchronous/Asynchronous

19
Staffing

• Each has a Board of Directors CEO
• Only 75 of teachers must be certified
• No findings on the impact
• Part-time/Full-time

20
Funding

• Why do traditional schools dislike cybers?

21
Brick/Mortar Funding
From Carr-Chellman Marsh, 2009
22
Cyber School Funding
From Carr-Chellman Marsh, 2009
23
Discrepancy in Funding
School 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 14,852.78
Cheltenham 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
24
Extra Curricular

• Most cybers offer field trips/social activities
• Home School Extra Curricular
• Can Still Participate in Sports
• Cyber reimburses school for cost

25
After Graduation from Cyber

• Higher Education
• Employment
• Military Does not recognize - 10 Rule
• No data, using home school explanation

26
Special Education

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

27
Disabilities

• Disabilities Reported
• Autism, ED, Mental Retardation, Hearing
  Impairment, Specific Learning Disability,
  Speech or Language Impairment
• Means over 40 students in school

28
Special Education contd.

• How are needs being met?
• Support Services IUs
• Modified Curriculum

29
CS AYP Status
PA CYBER CS  Made AYP
Central PA Digital Made AYP
21ST CENTURY CYBER CS Warning
PA Virtual Making Progress in Corrective Action I
PA Leadership Making Progress in Corrective Action I
Commonwealth Connections Academy CS Corrective Action I
ACHIEVEMENT HOUSE CS Corrective Action I
PA Distance Learning CS Corrective Action II 1st Year
SUSQ-CYBER CS  Corrective Action II 2nd Year
AGORA CYBER CS  Corrective Action II 1st Year
PA Learners Online Corrective Action II 3rd Year
30
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)

31
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?

32
Questions Comments
33
What you really stayed for

• Act 48 Code    GL073146

34
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.