The latest attack on Cyber Charter Schools (Divide and conquer)

  I am a teacher at a cyber school in Pennsylvania. For the past three years I have had the privilege of working in a blended learning environment. In these classes we meet face-to-face with middle school students for half the week and high school students for the other half. I teach a Civilizations course to the middle school and AP US History to the high school. The other half of the time the students are working independently in our Canvas learning platform.

In the past cyber charter schools have been been threatened with funding cuts by attempting to divide charter schools from cyber charter school funding. Recently our blended programs have been threatened by funding cuts from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Education. This is because the students in them are not perceived as receiving a "significant portion" of their instruction electronically. The teachers at our blended programs utilize the electronic instruction during our classroom sessions as much as 30% of the time. This brings the total electronic instruction to 80% which most people would agree is a "significant portion" of the learning happening at our blended program. These blended programs have been in operation for 14 years. The significant portion of learning online has only recently been called into question.

The Pennsylvania School Board and Administrators Association (PASBA & PASBO) believes that the funding of students should not have shifted from their local school districts to state-wide cyber schools. The cyber charter school movement sees this differently. We see it as funding following the student's choice.  Over the past 15 years we have won the argument that funding should follow the student. However, the latest tactic is to divide and conquer based upon blended programs within cyber schools not delivering a "significant portion" of instruction electronically. I already made the case that this is not true; however, it does not deter organizations like PASBO, and the PSBA from trying different tactics to protect their turf.

The loss of blended programs would deal a blow to innovation in education. Combining cyber education with onsite instruction is how college campuses are currently instructing their students. In some cases colleges campuses are also offering instruction 100% cyber. Traditional schools are also using electronic instruction with greater frequency. The cyber charter schools have been driven this innovation and have become the testing grounds for incorporating technological change into the traditional classroom. Moodle, Canvas, Google Classroom, PLATO, KAHOOT, Quizlet Live, Nearpod, Flipgrid, PADLET, and ARC videos are all good examples of this. There are many other programs that have come and gone, replaced by newer technology. There is danger in removing innovation that traditional schools may not replace outdated technology with newer forms because there will be no stimulus for change.

Our students in blended programs use many of the tools mentioned above while in the onsite classroom to collaborate and learn team building in a synchronous learning environment. 100% cyber charter schools have a facial feedback and emotional response deficit when students are learning completely asynchronously.  Tools are still being developed to incorporate facial feedback and emotional response in classroom small group projects and discussion. While tools like Zoom with breakout rooms and ARC videos with comments have come a long way to fill this gap, many students choose to hide their faces in these settings or remain anonymous. This can be an advantage when relating to their peers, but it can pose a real challenge to teachers attempting to formatively access student learning.

Blended education offers a great compromise of both worlds. To divide and conquer by removing the most innovative of educational programs is a loss, and not a gain. Organizations that criticize this style of learning need to go beyond protecting their turf and consider the long term impact on education that the removal of these innovative programs will produce. A example of this may be refusing to use ARC video because Youtube will suffice. Youtube may be easier, but it does not protect against the cyber threats of predators and bullying that is now a part of the online world. Today's students deserve to have access to the innovations that will make them competitive in today's global society, while being protected from its dangers. Dividing and conquering cyber schools and blended programs is like settling for a lack of change. You may gain some stability, but students are the ultimate losers when they are not prepared to learn 21st century work skills.

Modify PA HB 97 & Senate Bill 766 (An Open Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate)

Modify HB 97 & Senate Bill 766

The current Senate Bill 766 sponsored by Senator Argall and HB 97 by Representative Reese need some adjustments. Here is the core of the Senate bill. A task force will be appointed to determine minimum standards of academic achievement for students of cyber charter schools. Students who are determined as having failing grades will be removed from the cyber charter school system. Here is an excerpt from the bill.

(4) annually conduct an assessment of the student's achievement to determine whether the level of achievement satisfies the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A to continue enrollment in the cyber charter school. (2) A student who fails, after being assessed in accordance with section 1743-A(e)(4), to satisfy the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A shall withdraw from the cyber charter school at the end of the semester in which the assessment occurs and may not re-enroll in the cyber charter school or enroll in another cyber charter school unless the student satisfies the minimum achievement requirements at least one school year thereafter.

Here are some adjustments that I would recommend.

Stanford Study: 

The Stanford study has stimulated the desire to hold cyber charter schools accountable due to inadequate student achievement. While I applaud the concern for failing students in the cyber charter setting, the cyber charter school movement will not benefit from a one-size-fits-all policy. Some cyber schools are doing a better job of remediating student achievement and should be differentiated by the task force.

The Need for Differentiation:

The cyber charter schools are using different platforms and pedagogy to deliver instruction. In addition to differences in instructional platforms, there are also synchronous, asynchronous and blended learning models that are being beta tested. These innovations all have an implementation timeline for effectiveness. Many of these implementations are new. Cyber education changes as technology advances to deliver the best possible individual learning experience. A one-size-fits-all funding formula will punish innovation and reward the status quo. The loser in this formula is technological innovation which continues to change and increase in the proving grounds of cyber education.

Proving Ground or Dumping Ground

Cyber charter schools have become the dumping grounds for students seeking a second chance for success. There are legitimate reasons that many students choose a cyber educational setting. I call them the four B's. 

1. Bullying is a common reason students leave brick and mortar schools because they gain an individual setting apart from bullies. 
2. Bad or divergent behavior also provides a valid reason to minimize student interaction. Antisocial behaviors on the spectrum of autism can ostracize students causing them to withdraw. Cyber school provides students with a way to ease into a social setting with instant messages, multi-media classrooms, and field trips. 
3. Bad grades is the third reason for students leaving the traditional setting. Brick and mortar schools lose students because parents choose to send their children somewhere else. Many of these students suffer with poor grades and are looking for a different fresh start. Cyber schools provide a different alternative that provides individual instruction which allows for the possibility of success.
4. Breaking Boundaries is a different reason students choose cyber education. They embrace technological change to allow the time to reach other goals within their lives. They are leaders. They are also single mothers, gifted students, musicians, athletes, politically active, and young entrepreneurs.

Cyber charter schools are likely to have poorer graduation rates for the first three reasons, and traditional schools graduation rates should go up. Using student drop out averages across all schools to access effectiveness punishes cyber charter schools for accepting these students. 

Accountability:

The Task Force should take the average failing scores of students in the top cyber charter school when developing standards to determine "minimum achievement". This should be written into the bill to direct the task force to determine a benchmark. This will promote innovation without punishing systemic achievement.

Relationships:

The student teacher relationship is a foundation marker for student achievement. Students will never care how much you know until they know how much you care. The most at risk students are the students most deserving of a mentor relationship with their teacher. As a teacher of cyber charter students for fourteen years I have had the distinct privilege of making life long relationships with many of my students. As they have graduated and become Linkedin, Facebook and Instagram connections I have watched them succeed and flounder. The students who I have had the strongest relationship with seem to have found their way better in the world of work and family. 

Conclusion:

One size does not fit all in education or in cyber charter education. In my educational experiences over the past 14 years I have seen the need for greater differentiation in education. Technology provides a path to this. I do however understand the need for accountability. I welcome it when it comes with measures that reward innovation while punishing the lack of student achievement.