The virtual charter industry is anticipating growth in enrollments and profits, thanks to the pandemic.
The largest of the virtual charters is the K12 Inc. virtual charter chain, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, whose revenues exceeded $1 billion this year.
Executives haul in big salaries (one of K12’s founders, Ron Packard, was paid $5 million a year but has since moved on to lead other charter chains). Michael Milken was an early investor in K12 and Bill Bennett was a prominent leader until he made racist remarks that caused him to be removed.
The most important thing to know about virtual charter schools is that they have dismal track records. They enroll as many students as possible through heavy advertising and marketing, but their graduation rates are low, their test scores are low, and their attrition rates are high.
Numerous studies of virtual charter schools agree that their results are very poor. A CREDO study in 2015 concluded that students in virtual charters lose ground in reading and lose the equivalent of a year of instruction in math.
While findings vary for each student, the results in CREDO’s report show that the majority of online charter students had far weaker academic growth in both math and reading compared to their traditional public school peers. To conceptualize this shortfall, it would equate to a student losing 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in math, based on a 180-day school year. This pattern of weaker growth remained consistent across racial-ethnic subpopulations and students in poverty.
The studies of virtual schools by Gary Miron and his colleagues report graduation rates of about 50%, as compared to a graduation rate of 83% in traditional public schools, as well as low performance compared to regular public schools.
So, if you want virtual learning at home and you don’t care if your child actually learns anything, sign up.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
ROFL!!!!
I think they’re wrong. I think what happened was tens of millions of people experienced online education and see it for what it is- a cheap, shoddy, substandard replacement that is pushed to low and middle income families to make profits for contractors like K12 and cut public spending on education.
Here’s how Betsy DeVos spends her time during this period of unprecedented crisis for US public schools-
Having a closed door meeting with the Michigan federalist society.
https://fedsoc.org/events/a-virtual-conversation-with-betsy-devos-1
When this crisis is past we need to have a serious conversation about how the “ed reform movement” members in government do absolutely no practical work on behalf of public schools or public school students.
It shouldn’t surprise us either- a movement that exists to abolish public schools is not interested in supporting, improving or investing in public schools. Our schools conflict with the ideological goals of “reinventing” (privatizing) . Putting anti-public school people in charge of education policy was never going to be good for students in public schools, and it hasn’t been.
Go to any of the ed reform site and look for a positive idea or effort that applies to public schools, that is even relevant to public schools. There are none.
I agree with Chiara. After experiencing the last 3 months of school, my students want in person interaction.
Maybe parents will view the online industry as being better able to occupy their kids?
The virtual marketeers are looking to reach the people at top, the decision makers. These are the politicians and administrators that find themselves in a financial pinch from the pandemic. These hucksters will pitch their useless online instruction as a viable alternative to traditional instruction. As this post shows, online programming is not an equivalent education. We should share this post with parent groups and public education advocates across the country.
DeVos and many other privatizers do not care about the quality of our young people’s education. They are more interested in undermining traditional instruction than providing quality education. Politicians are looking for a simple way to plug gaps in their budgets, and they do not want to raise taxes on donors. Parents and public school advocates should take a cue from Black Lives Matter. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. If parents accept this dumbed down substitute, most politicians will jump at the change to let the nation’s children bear the burden of the cost of the pandemic. We have to resist this disastrous bait and switch that will only benefit computer companies, not the nation’s young people.
Many public schools are in the midst of planning for some “remote” instructional delivery with software enabling that. Districts and teachers are not certain out how to manage that, especially with the likelihood that funding will be inadequate, and some favored programs may be cut–think the arts, science labs, indoor physical education in gyms.
I am not sure how the pandemic will hit the bottom line of for-profit online programs, but I’d guess that those businesses are amping up advertising and recruiting parents who think the programs are at least as good as the fare that will be offered in local schools.
The biggest “keepers”of enrollments in public schools are relationships marked by trust and respect for the teachers and leadership, and clear plans that will be perceived as the best options for parents/caregivers, including transportation. The online experiences of students during the lockdowns will certainly make a difference in whether they want more of the same at home or something with a promise of returning to school, social interactions there, and the rest.