Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Finaldefense April2010v10 Web


Published on

CSU Fresno Final Defense Presentation

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Finaldefense April2010v10 Web

  1. 1. Final Dissertation Defense<br />A Comparative Study Between Online Charter High Schools and Traditional High Schoolsin California<br />Rob Darrow<br />April 7, 2010<br />California State University, Fresno<br />Rob’s Wiki:<br />
  2. 2. Welcome, Thank You and Presentation Schedule<br />20 Min: Rob’s Presentation<br />10 Min: Committee Questions<br />10 Min: Other Questions<br />End of Presentation<br />5-10 Min: Committee Confers<br />Rob’s Wiki:<br />
  3. 3. My Dissertation Committee <br />Dr. Ken Magdaleno (Chair)<br />Dept. of Educational Research and Administration<br />Former teacher and middle school principal<br />Interests: Latino and Latina mentoring, leadership, issues of equity<br />Dr. David Tanner<br />Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction<br />Interests: statistics and measurement, educational research, quantitative and qualitative evaluation<br />
  4. 4. My Dissertation Committee (cont’d) <br />Dr. Ginny Boris<br />Dept. of Educational Research and Administration<br />Co-Director Central Valley Educational Leadership Institute (CVELI)<br />Interests: Curriculum/Instruction, Admin. Leadership<br />Dr. Brent Auernheimer<br />Dept. of Computer Science<br />Director of CSU Fresno Digital Campus<br />Interests: web based instruction, human computer interaction, software engineering<br />
  5. 5. Background – National Trends<br />Two educational trends challenging traditional education: <br />** Charter Schools ** Enrollment increases 11% - 20% per year<br />** Online Schools ** Enrollment increases 30% per year<br />
  6. 6. One Other National Trend:Static Dropout Rates<br />
  7. 7. Research Focus<br />Full Time Online Charter School Students<br />Traditional School Students<br />At-Risk Students<br />In California<br />Measured By:<br />Achievement Test Scores <br />Dropout Rates<br />
  8. 8. Research Questions<br />1. Are there a disproportionate number of at-risk students attending online charter high schools as compared to traditional high schools in California? <br />2. Are at-risk students more successful in online charter high schools than in traditional high schools in California?<br />
  9. 9. Definitions<br />Traditional High School<br />attend courses daily in face-to-face setting<br />Online High School<br />attend courses online where 80% instruction is online<br />Charter School<br />independently operated public schools of choice, free from many regulations but accountable for standardized test results as determined by state laws<br />At-Risk<br />any student not making progress towards graduation <br />Success <br />proficient on California Standards Test/English-Language Arts (CST ELA) <br />lower number of student dropouts<br />
  10. 10. Definitions: Counting Dropouts<br />One student counts as a dropout if either:<br />A. Leaves a school and does NOT register at another school<br />OR<br />B. Leaves school and does NOT have a high school diploma<br />Standards set by US Department of Education (reported by states)<br />Counted in Grades 7-12 in California<br />
  11. 11. Definitions: Online School Enrollment<br /><ul><li>Part-time Online Students
  12. 12. Take one or two online courses in addition to attending traditional school
  13. 13. One student in one course per semester counts one
  14. 14. Full Time Online Students
  15. 15. One student attending the school counts one</li></ul>Watson, Gemin, Ryan & Wicks (2009). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning.<br />
  16. 16. Definitions: Counting Online School EnrollmentNo Standards<br />Part-time online students not officially counted, except as an estimate in response to a researcher’s survey<br />Full time online students counted if they attend an online charter school<br />In California, public school students, including charters, are counted each October via California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)<br />
  17. 17. Literature Review<br />Three parts:<br />1. Student Dropouts / At-risk Students<br />2. Charter School Students<br />3. Online School Students<br />
  18. 18. Literature Review: Glass half full or half empty?<br />Dropouts<br />Graduates<br />
  19. 19. Literature Review: Data used to determine dropouts or graduates<br />Longitudinal Data<br />Collected by National Center for Educational Statistics (1980, 1988, 1997, 2002)<br />Common Core of Data (CCD)<br />Reported by states to Dept. of ED/NCES (yearly)<br />Current Population Survey Data (CPS)<br />Monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics<br />National Census Report Data<br />Every 10 years<br />
  20. 20. Literature Review: Counting High School Dropouts - NCESKetaldi, Laird & KewalJemani (2009)<br />Event Dropout Rate (one school year to next)<br />Downward trendbetween 1972 and 2007<br />6.1% to 3.5%<br />Status Dropout Rate (one point in time)<br />Downward trendbetween 1972 and 2007 <br />14.6% to 8.7%<br />Status Completion Rate (diploma or GED) <br />Increased completion ratefrom 1980-2007<br />83.9% to 89%<br />
  21. 21. Literature Review: Counting High School Dropouts - NCESKetaldi, Laird & KewalJemani (2009)<br />Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate - AFGR<br />percentage of students who graduated on time within four years<br />Increased graduation ratefrom class of 2002 to class of 2006 <br />72.6% to 73.2%<br />
  22. 22. Literature Review: Research and Dropouts<br />“Lack of school success is probably the greatest single cause which impels pupils to drop out of school.”<br />Ayres (1909). Laggards in our schools.<br />
  23. 23. Literature Review: Indicators Leading to Student Dropouts<br />Individual factors<br />Family factors<br />School factors<br /><ul><li>Balfanz et al. (2009), Hammond (2007), Wehlage et al. (1989)</li></ul>School factors contribute to the <br />majority of student dropouts<br /><ul><li>Schussler (2002), Natriello, McDill and Pallas (1990), Rumberger (1987), Wehlageand Rutter (1986)</li></li></ul><li>Literature Review: Research and Graduation Rates<br />Graduation rates have stayed the same…75% for the past 40 years<br />Wehlage et al. (1989) <br />Graduation rates have decreased, among Latinos and African Americans<br />Swanson (2005), Balfanz & Legters (2004), Orfield (2004) <br />Graduation rates have increased with the overall graduation rate at 82%. <br />Mishel (2006)<br />
  24. 24. Literature Review: Dropout Research Shows<br />More males drop out than females<br />Dalton, Glennie & Ingels (2009)<br />More students living in urban areas drop out <br />Swanson (2008) <br />More African Americans and Hispanics drop out than Anglos and Asians <br />Levin et al. (2007)<br />More students of poverty drop out <br />Dalton, Glennie & Ingels (2009)<br />
  25. 25. Literature Review: Dropout Research and What Makes a Difference? <br />Mentor programs or the presence of a significant caring adult can cause at-risk students to remain in school <br />Camak (2007), Rysewyk (2008), Noddings (2005), Outlaw (2004). <br />
  26. 26. Literature Review: Charter School History and Policy<br />1991 – Minnesota: first charter school law<br />1992 - California passed charter school law<br />1997-2009 – Every president supports charter school direction. Obama vows to “expand our commitment to charter schools and invest in innovation.”<br />2009 – 40 stateshave passed charter school laws; 5,042 schoolsserving over 1.5 million students(Allen & Consoletti, 2010)<br />
  27. 27. Literature Review: Charter School Development<br />Charter schools have the potential to transform American public education and provide choice to families that did not exist prior to charter schools.<br />Finn, Manno & Vanourek (2000), Nathan (1996)<br />
  28. 28. Literature Review: Types of Charter Schools<br />Carpenter (2006). Playing to type? Mapping the charter school landscape.<br />
  29. 29. Literature Review: Charter Schools and Student Achievement<br />Some charter schools performing better than traditional public schools, and some performing worse<br />Betts and Yang (2008)<br />Charter schools do not do well in their first year of operation but subsequently improve<br />Zimmer et al. (2009). Rand Report.<br />
  30. 30. Literature Review: Charter Schools<br />“I speculate that charter school reform is a late-20th – century reform that will die of its own weight some time early <br />in the 21st century.”<br /><ul><li> Wells (2002)</li></ul>Charter schools doing no better than traditional public schools with student achievement and are not serving minorities or poor students <br />UCLA Charter School Study (1998) examined charter schools in California<br />Wells (2002)<br />
  31. 31. Literature Review: Online School History and Policy<br />1994 – 1997 - First K-12 online schools: <br />Utah Electronic School<br />Virtual High School – Massachusetts<br />Florida Virtual School<br />2007 – Number of states with online programs / online legislation: 42<br />2007 – Number of online charter schools:<br />173 in 18 states <br />92,235 students (Center for Ed Reform, 2008)<br />2008 – Online course enrollments grew by 65% from <br /> 2002-03 to 2004-05 (Means, 2009)<br />2009 – More than a million K-12 online school students(Picciano and Seaman, 2009)<br />
  32. 32. Literature Review: Types of Online Schools<br />A. National Companies– individual online charter schools in different states (K-12, Inc. Connections Academy, Insight, Kaplan)<br />Primarily charter schools<br />B. Statewide– run by state agencies<br />Some charters, some not<br />C. District / County– run by school districts or county educational offices<br />Some charters, some not<br />Watson, Gemin, Ryan & Wicks (2009). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning.<br />
  33. 33. Literature Review: Online Learning andStudent Achievement<br />Meta-analysis have found that overall, student achievement in online schools is the same or better when compared with traditional schools <br />Means et al. (2009), Cavanaugh et al. (2004)<br />Emerging Research<br />Student success / student attrition in online courses (Porta-Merida, 2009; Roblyer, 2008)<br />Student and parent satisfaction in online courses (Butz, 2004)<br />
  34. 34. Methodology: Focus<br />In California<br />13% of the total U.S. K-12 public school student enrollment<br />20% of the U.S. public charter school enrollment <br />Top rated state regarding charter school law and policy <br />National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (2010)<br />
  35. 35. Methodology: Comparison Study<br />Online charter high school students<br />14 existed in California – 2006-2009<br />Traditional high school students<br />Comparisons in:<br />Growth Rates<br />Achievement Rates<br />Dropout Rates<br />
  36. 36. Methodology: The Subjects<br />Online Charter School Students<br />10 chosen with grades 9-12 for at least two years<br />Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) percentage (Range: 30%-50%)<br />Traditional High School Students<br />10 chosen<br />Randomly selected by FRL (30%-50%) <br />Geographically different regions<br />
  37. 37. Methodology: Procedures<br />Student test data and dropout data for selected schools from publicly accessible websites/databases maintained by theCalifornia Department of Education:<br />Ed Data:<br />Dataquest:<br />Ed Partnership:<br />
  38. 38. Methodology: Analysis<br />Descriptive Statistics<br />Calculated percentage proficient on state English-Language Arts tests (CST ELA)<br />Calculated dropout percentages <br />Examined trends<br />Significance Testing<br />Chi square test of independence<br />
  39. 39. Results: California Standards Test / English-Language Arts (CST ELA)2007-08 and 2008-09<br />Taken yearly in grades 9, 10 and 11<br />Selected Online Charter Schools<br />Selected Traditional Schools<br />
  40. 40. Year: 2007-2008CST ELA ComparisonsPercent Proficient and Above<br /> Online Charters Traditional Schools<br />
  41. 41. Year: 2008-2009CST ELA ComparisonsPercent Proficient and Above<br /> Online Charters Traditional Schools<br />
  42. 42. Chi square test of independence: Proficient on CST ELA Test<br />0 = proficient; 1 = not proficient<br />0 = traditional schools; 1 = online charter<br />Grades 9, 10 and 11<br />Selected online charter schools vs. selected traditional schools<br />2007-08; 2008-09<br />All statistics were significant at p = <.001<br />
  43. 43. Results: Dropout Rates2006-07 and 2007-08<br />Reported yearly in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12<br />Selected Online Charter Schools<br />Selected Traditional Schools<br />Note: Dropout data from 2008-2009 not available<br />
  44. 44. Year: 2006-2007Dropout Percentages by Grade<br />Note: 2006-07 Online Charter School Enrollment in Grades 11 and 12 was less than 100 students per grade<br /> Online Charters Traditional Schools<br />
  45. 45. Year: 2007-2008Dropout Percentages by Grade<br /> Online Charters Traditional Schools<br />
  46. 46. Chi square test of independence: Dropout Rates<br />0 = Not a dropout; 1 = dropout<br />0 = traditional schools; 1 = online charter<br />Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12<br />Selected online charter schools vs. selected traditional schools<br />2006-07; 2007-08<br />All statistics were significant at p = <.001<br />
  47. 47. Results: California*<br />Enrollment in online charter schools has increased each year for the past three years: 80% in past two years<br />Percent of students in charter high schools: 6% of total 9-12 enrollment<br />Percent of students in online charter high schools: .16% of total 9-12 enrollment<br />* See Handout<br />
  48. 48. Results: Achievement and Dropouts<br />Student Achievement (CST ELA)<br />Greater in traditional high schools than in online charter schools<br />Percentage difference ranged from 8% to 11%<br />Dropout Rates<br />Much greater in online charter schools than in traditional schools<br />Percentage difference ranged from 22% to 55%<br />
  49. 49. Results: Research Questions<br />1. Are there a disproportionate number of at-risk students attending online charter high schools (OCS) as compared to traditional high schools (TS) in California?<br />Based on percentages of Free and Reduced Lunch students, there are not.<br />Similar percentages of students are classified as Free and Reduced Lunch in OCS and TS<br />Based on percentages of dropouts, there are.<br />There were a larger percentage of students who dropped out of OCS than TS<br />
  50. 50. Results: Research Questions<br />2. Are at-risk students more successful in online charter high schools (OCS) than in traditional high schools (TS) in California?<br />Based on percentages of students who scored proficient or above on CST ELA, at-risk students are similarly successful in OCS and TS. <br />Differences between the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on CST ELA at each grade level showed a difference between 8%-10% <br />
  51. 51. Recommendations<br />Need a uniform way to count online school students<br />Innovation grants and research grants needed for online learning in California<br />Common standards for K-12 online learning should be adopted<br />Ongoing finance model for online schools needed in California; current school funding finance models don’t fit with online courses<br />
  52. 52. Future Research<br />Study achievement levels of site based and independent study charter schools compared to traditional schools<br />Longitudinal qualitative study examining why students attend and/or drop out of online charter schools<br />Examine why students leave traditional schools and choose to attend online charter schools<br />
  53. 53. Final Reflection Based on My Research<br />Future students will attend schools that do have online options<br />Education at all levels (K-12, community college, university) should be designing and offering fully online courses now<br />Online learning will growwith or without the involvement of traditional schools<br />
  54. 54. Questions?<br />Rob’s Wiki:<br />