Archives for category: On-Line Education

Rhonda Brownstein, the executive director of Pennsylvania’s Education Law Center, says that it is time to stop trusting the claims of cyber charter promoters. For years, they have promised that students would get “innovative” education and that wondrous things would happen when virtual charters became reality, but Pennsylvania now knows that none of that turned out to be true.

Pennsylvania has allowed unchecked growth of cyber charters. They have drained funding away from public schools while providing a low-quality of education.

She writes:

“Attorneys at ELC have heard from the families of many students attending cyber charter schools. Here’s what those families have reported: Students spending countless hours behind computer screens without any required human interaction; students with disabilities who are not receiving any appropriate academic instruction; and students who have been pushed into computer-based programs as a result of behavioral incidents.”

And she adds:

“Cyber charter supporters tout policy recommendations that focus on a theoretical version of the future without addressing the ill effects of Pennsylvania’s 13-year embrace of cyber charter schools. Some of those supporters go so far as to say that Pennsylvania is in jeopardy of falling behind other states in an imagined race to expand the number of cyber charter schools. But the truth is that, despite mounting evidence of the academic failure of these schools, Pennsylvania has blindly led the full-time cyber schooling movement for years. In fact, during the 2011-2012 school year Pennsylvania accounted for 16 percent of all students enrolled in full-time cyber schools in the entire country.”

“Pennsylvania has been experimenting with students in cyber charter schools under the guise of “innovation” for more than a decade. We no longer need to hypothesize about the results. Cyber charters do not work for the majority of the students they enroll.”

President Obama will unveil his technology plan for American education today in Mooresville, North Carolina.

Joy Resmovits reports on Huffington Post:

“President Barack Obama imagines a country where teachers know what’s happening in their students’ brains.

“He wants “teachers to have an ability to assess learning hour by hour and day by day,” a senior White House official said Wednesday. “That vision … is really not possible with the connectivity we have today.”

“That’s why on Thursday Obama will speak at a school in Mooresville, N.C., to unveil an initiative that aims to give 99 percent of America’s public schools high-speed connectivity over the next five years.”

Mooresville has won national attention because it provided laptop computers to every student in fourth grade and above, and its graduation rate shot up. The superintendent says there were other reasons for the increased graduation rate.

A few things about North Carolina: the Democratic Party held its 2012 National Convention there. It is a right-to-work state. The state spending on public education is 48th in the nation. Teachers’ salaries are 46th in the nation. Legislation introduced this spring by the president pro tem of the state senate would strip teachers of all tenure rights. At the same time that the legislature is attacking the pay and tenure of career educators, it allocated $6 million to hire inexperienced Teach for America teachers. The legislature also plans to expand the number of charters, free of conflict of interest regulations, free of diversity requirements, and free to hire uncertified teachers.

Technology is a wonderful thing, and all schools should be connected to the Internet.

But I would respectfully suggest to President Obama that there are far larger issues he should tackle right now, like defending the very existence of a teaching profession, defending academic freedom of educators, supporting the nation’s public schools, resisting privatization, and helping states provide equality of educational opportunity, with enough resources to meet the essential needs of students.

In a sign that informed opposition makes a difference, New Jersey State Commissioner Chris Cerf denied approval to two virtual charter schools.

“A year ago the two charters — a K-12 school in Newark and a high school for dropouts in Monmouth and Ocean Counties — appeared poised to become the state’s first all-online programs. Both had received preliminary approval from the Christie administration.

“But support slowly wilted over the past year, as community and political opposition mounted. And K12 Inc., the nation’s largest online education firm, was connected with both charter applications as well, prompting debate over the for-profit company’s role.”

The proposed K12 charter spokesman was furious. He released a letter expressing his disappointment:

““We now find ourselves in the position of having to tell 850 children, their families, and the teachers your staff insisted we hire as part of the compliance process that, once again, the school will be denied the opportunity to open and prove ourselves,” read the letter from Michael Pallante, chairman of the proposed school’s board.

“Not once during all of the hearings, trainings, demonstration sessions, e-mail, and telephone conversations were we ever told that this was going to happen to us and to these families once again,” he said.

The school noted that it had also hired experts to speak to the legality and effectiveness of the programs. K12 also signed on with the state’s top lobbying firm, Princeton Public Affairs Group.”

The other rejected school, aimed at dropouts, had trouble enrolling students and seemed likely to withdraw.

“This would have been a disaster for taxpayers and a disaster for children, and we are happy that he did the right thing,” said Julia Sass Rubin, a spokeswoman for Save Our Schools New Jersey, a pro-public school group.

Although K12 Inc. and Pearson’s Connections Academy have lobbied for approval of virtual for-profit charter schools in Maine, the state senate voted 22-13 to put a freeze on them until further study about their effectiveness. The vote fell two short of the 24 needed to override a veto by Governor Paul LePage, a recipient of campaign contributions from the online industry.

Lobbying by the online industry and ties between former Governor Jeb Bush and the LePage administration were the subject of an award-winning exposé in the Maine Sunday-Telegram last fall. LePage’s Commissioner of Education Stephen Bowen is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, and the exposé last fall revealed that Bowen relied on Bush’s Organization, the Foundation for Educational Excellence, for ideas and legislative language.

Bowen still relies on Bush for policy guidance. Last month he announced an A-F grading system for Maine schools, an idea first implemented in Florida by then-Governor Bush. It is used in some places, like New York City, as a means to close schools and replace them with charter schools.

Regarding the moratorium, Commissioner Bowen said that the moratorium was “designed to halt the development of virtual schools.” Well, yes, that seems to be the point.

Faculty at San Jose State University have signed a letter opposing the administration’s decision to use online courses developed by faculty at Harvard, MIT, and other eastern universities. The San Jose professors see the adoption of online courses as a deliberate strategy to replace them and downsize their departments. The professors of the humanities are especially incensed.

Their letter was addressed to Harvard professor Michael Sandel, whose course on social justice was offered online to San Jose State.

An excerpt:

  • “In spite of our admiration for your ability to lecture in such an engaging way to such a large audience, we believe that having a scholar teach and engage his or her own students in person is far superior to having those students watch a video of another scholar engaging his or her students.”
  • “We fear that two classes of universities will be created: one, well- funded colleges and universities in which privileged students get their own real professor; the other, financially stressed private and public universities in which students watch a bunch of videotaped lectures and interact, if indeed any interaction is available on their home campuses, with a professor that this model of education has turned into a glorified teaching assistant.” 
  • “We believe the purchasing of online … courses is not driven by concerns about pedagogy, but by an effort to restructure the U.S. university system in general, and our own California State University system in particular.” 
  • “At a news conference (April 10, 2013, at SJSU) … California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom acknowledged as much: ‘The old education financing model, frankly, is no longer sustainable.’ This is the crux of the problem. … The purchasing of (online courses) from outside vendors is the first step toward restructuring the CSU.”
  • “Let’s not kid ourselves; administrators at the CSU are beginning a process of replacing faculty with cheap online education.”
  • “Professors who care about public education should not produce products that will replace professors, dismantle departments, and provide a diminished education for students in public universities.”

 

 

 

Pennsylvania is overrun with cyber charters. There are 16 of them competing for customers, sucking money out of real public schools, supplying a terrible education. Some are under investigation. The legislature protects them because of campaign contributions.

Meanwhile public schools are suffering due to budget cuts while these sham schools make profits.

They have extracted $4 billion from the state’s taxpayers in inflated costs, padded enrollment data, and legislative beneficence. This is legal graft.

The good work of many parent organizations and local school boards achieved a positive result yesterday when the Legislature passed a bill reducing the number of tests needed to graduate high school from 15 to five.

Public sentiment was strongly opposed to the massive testing regime that had grown out of control and beyond reason.

More than 80% of the state’s local school boards had passed resolutions opposing high-stakes testing.

And the parent groups led the charge to persuade the legislature that testing had become a burden, not a means of improving student achievement.

The parent group called TAMSA (Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment) was also known as “Moms Against Drunk Testing.”

However, do not believe for a minute that the Texas Legislature has turned wobbly overnight. At the same time that they passed House Bill 5 to reduce the number of tests needed for graduation, they also passed a bill that will vastly increase the privatization of Texas public education by lifting the cap on charter schools. Another bill opens up the state to unlimited expansion of online corporations, the predatory companies that take dollars away from public schools while providing inferior education.

This is the language opening the door to exploitation of public dollars by the online industry:

7:13 p.m. by Morgan Smith

Legislation expanding online education in Texas public schools is heading to the governor’s desk. Both the House and Senate have adopted the final version of HB 1926 from Rep. Ken King, R-Hemphill.
The bill opens up the state’s virtual school system — which is now restricted to school districts, charters, and colleges — to nonprofits and private companies. Currently, many course providers within the virtual school systemalready subcontract with private companies. Starting in middle school, HB 1926 also requires all districts to offer students a chance to take online courses, though it limits the number of those classes students can take to three per year.
The Texas Education Agency would authorize course providers, renewing their approval every three years depending on student performance.
The online industry is powerful in Texas, and it lobbied hard to open the door to its inferior products. There is no evidence to support the value of online courses or homeschooling online at the government’s expense. There is a wealth of evidence that these courses and virtual schools are a waste of money.
So, score this legislative session as a victory for the critics of high-stakes testing, and a victory for the vultures who want to suck money out of the public system for their own enrichment.

TAMSA issued the following press release after the testing bill passed:

Dear TAMSA Members:
Today, legislators in the Texas House and Senate voted to adopt House Bill 5 as recommended by the Conference Committee. TAMSA commends this effort and would like to specifically thank Speaker Joe Straus, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, Representative Jimmie Don Aycock, Chair of the House Public Education Committee, and Senator Dan Patrick, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, for their extraordinary leadership and commitment to shepherding HB 5 through the legislative process. Rep. Aycock and Senator Patrick and their committees personally listened to days of parent and student testimony on how the excessive focus on state-mandated standardized tests is negatively impacting Texas schools and student learning. These leaders met with stakeholders and other members of the legislature to diligently craft HB 5. Rep. Aycock and Sen. Patrick have set a new threshold in Texas for legislative access and transparency.
HB 5 has been extensively debated and amended during this legislative session. This much-needed legislation reforms and reshapes public education at the high school level, in particular revising the testing, curriculum, and accountability regime in Texas. Under HB 5, state-mandated STAAR exams required to be passed for high school graduation will be limited to five:  English 1 and 2 (reading and writing combined into one test), Algebra 1, Biology, and US History. HB 5 also eliminates the provision that required 15% of EOC scores to count in students’ final grades, as well as the cumulative score requirement. Two additional state-designed standardized tests, Algebra 2 and English 3, can be administered at the school district’s option. Further, HB 5 provides flexibility in high school curriculum that will allow Texas students to pursue their interests, while retaining rigor and allowing all high school graduates to be eligible for admission into Texas public colleges and universities. This bill also modifies the school accountability rating system.
“Texas parents have been extremely active and involved in the legislative process for the last two years since realizing the detrimental impact of the new STAAR tests,” said Dineen Majcher, President of TAMSA. “Parental involvement significantly helped legislators to understand the dire, albeit unintended, consequences of the current system. We have worked together to craft meaningful solutions.”

On behalf of parents across the state, TAMSA expresses its deepest appreciation to the House and Senate leadership and members for taking bold and positive action on behalf of Texas students.

TAMSA

The writer of this article, Colin Woodard, recently won the George Polk award, one of the highest honors in journalism.

The article is bout a sordid effort to promote technology as a for-profit enterprise in Maine schools. To introduce a Maine virtual charter school, to require online courses for graduation, and to follow a script written not by educators but by lobbyists.

This is a classic. Don’t miss it.

Having studied the history of education for some decades, I have a built-in resistance to claims about the school of the future, particularly when it involves the end of schooling. Over many years, I have seen predictions about that Great Day when all children are self-motivated, all learning comes naturally, and instruction by adults becomes superfluous. The archetype of this idea was A. S. Neill’s “Summerhill,” which was a huge bestseller in the 1960s. But it was preceded by many other visions of schools without books, without tests, without classes, without teachers, without stress, without walls, without without without.

Here is the latest: a school in the Cloud, with Grannies to answer questions as self-motivated children use the Web to learn at their own speed, as they wish. The man behind this proposal won a $1 million TED prize for this idea.

What do you think?

A new report reviews the advent of online courses for community college students.

It was prepared by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Online courses are popular because they seem to be a way to take courses at home, whenever it is convenient.

This is especially valuable for community college students because they are adults with multiple responsibilities.

What are the results?

Community college students who take online courses perform worse and persist less than those who take face-to-face classes.

This is the conclusion in the study:

“CCRC’s studies suggest that community college students who choose to take courses online are less likely to complete and perform well in those courses. The results also suggest that online courses may exacerbate already persistent achievement gaps between student subgroups.”

Online courses are not for everyone. They may actually be demotivating because of the lack of a personal relationship with an instructor. Once again, the hype is greater than the reality.