Barbour, M. K. (2014, October). In the public interest: Examining the profit motive in cyber charter schooling. A roundtable presentation to the Northeastern Education Research Association, Trumbull, CT

1. Michael K. Barbour
Sacred Heart University

2. K-12 Online Learning
 virtual school = supplemental
 cyber school = full-time

4. Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
over half of students who completed FLVS courses
scored an A in their course & only 7% received a failing
grade
Barker & Wendel
(2001)
students in the six virtual schools in three different
provinces performed no worse than the students from the
three conventional schools
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory
assessment tool than students from the traditional
classroom
McLeod et al.
(2005)
FLVS students performed better on an algebraic
assessment than their classroom counterparts
Barbour &
Mulcahy (2008,
2009)
little difference in the overall performance of students
based upon delivery model
Chingos &
Schwerdt (2014)
FLVS students perform about the same or somewhat
better on state tests once their pre-high-school
characteristics are taken into account

5. Ballas & Belyk
(2000)
participation rate in the assessment among
virtual students ranged from 65% to 75%
compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom-based
students
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
between 25% and 50% of students had dropped
out of their FLVS courses over the previous two-year
period
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
speculated that the virtual school students who
did take the assessment may have been more
academically motivated and naturally higher
achieving students
McLeod et al.
(2005)
results of the student performance were due to
the high dropout rate in virtual school courses

6. Haughey &
Muirhead (1999)
preferred characteristics include the highly motivated,
self-directed, self-disciplined, independent learner who
could read and write well, and who also had a strong
interest in or ability with technology
Roblyer & Elbaum
(2000)
only students with a high need to control and structure
their own learning may choose distance formats freely
Clark et al. (2002) IVHS students were highly motivated, high achieving,
self-directed and/or who liked to work independently
Mills (2003) typical online student was an A or B student
Watkins (2005) 45% of the students who participated in e-learning
opportunities in Michigan were either advanced
placement or academically advanced students

7. • “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing
have been lower than scores for students statewide over
the last three years.” (Colorado, 2006)
• “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the
mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Examination were almost always lower than
statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years.” (Wisconsin, 2010)
• “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a
year. When they do, they’re often further behind
academically then when they started.” (Colorado, 2011)

8. • “Compared with all students statewide, full-time
online students had significantly lower proficiency
rates on the math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates
in reading.” (Minnesota, 2011)
• “nearly nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least
one statewide online course, all had graduation rates
and AIMS math passing rates below the state
average” (Arizona, 2011)
• “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual
school company, are falling further behind in reading
and math scores than students in brick-and-mortar
schools.” (Miron & Urschel, 2012)

9. 1. “the preliminary research shows promise for online
learning as an effective alternative for improving
student performance across diverse groups of
students.” (Patrick, & Powell, 2009)
2. “rank higher when looking at their ‘value-added’
progress over one year rather than simply measuring
their one-time testing performance.” (Ohio Alliance
for Public Charter Schools, 2009)

10. 1. “The mission of the International Association for K-
12 Online Learning (iNACOL) is to ensure all students
have access to a world-class education and quality
blended and online learning opportunities that
prepare them for a lifetime of success.”
2. Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools — an
“organization dedicated to the enhancement and
sustainability of quality charter schools”

11. • “K12 Inc. virtual schools enroll approximately the same
percentages of black students but substantially more white
students and fewer Hispanic students relative to public schools
in the states in which the company operates”
• “39.9% of K12 students qualify for free or reduced lunch,
compared with 47.2% for the same-state comparison group.”
• “K12 virtual schools enroll a slightly smaller proportion of
students with disabilities than schools in their states and in the
nation as a whole (9.4% for K12 schools, 11.5% for same-state
comparisons, and 13.1% in the nation).”
• “Students classified as English language learners are
significantly under-represented in K12 schools; on average the
K12 schools enroll 0.3% ELL students compared with 13.8% in
the same-state comparison group and 9.6% in the nation.”
Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time virtual schools. Denver, CO: National
Education Policy Center.

12. “AYP is not a reliable measure of school
performance…. There is an emerging
consensus to scrap AYP and replace it with a
better system that measures academic
progress and growth. K12 has been
measuring student academic growth on
behalf of its partner schools, and the results
are strong with academic gains above the
national average.”
Jeff Kwitowski - K12, Inc. Vice President of Public Affairs

13. Mathematics performance:
• students in the face-to-face group increased their performance by 1% more than the ARVA
group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 5% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 4 to 6 (not statistically significant)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 2% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 16% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 6 to 8 (statistically significant at the p=0.10 level)
• Literacy performance:
• students in the face-to-face group increased their performance by 3% more than the ARVA
group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 11% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 4 to 6 (statistically significant at the p=0.10 level)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 2% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the ARVA group increased their performance by 7% more than the face-to-face
group from grades 6 to 8 (not statistically significant)

14. • The ARVA sample had several of its lowest performing
students removed before they had repeated a grade
or had dropped out over the two year period
• The ARVA sample was a more affluent group
• The ARVA sample had significant fewer minority
students
• The researchers choose to use an alpha level of 0.10

15. • “the operating costs of online programs are about the
same as the operating costs of a regular brick-and-mortar
program.” (Anderson, Augenblick, DeCescre, &
Conrad, 2006)
• the report authors excluded from their estimates
traditional schools’ capital expenses and
transportation costs; had those costs been included,
the authors noted, “the costs of operating virtual
schools would have been less per pupil than brick-and-mortar
schools.”

16. Colorado Cyberschool
Association (2004)
“cost per student [of cyber schooling] is not enormously
higher than for in-class students. Over time, cyber
education will become substantially more cost-efficient.”
Ohio Legislative
Committee on
Education Oversight
(2005)
the actual cost of the five existing full-time online charter
schools was $5382/student, compared to $8437/student
for traditional public brick-and-mortar schools.
Gillis (2010) Insight School was able to operate their full-time online
charter schools at a cost of only $6,480/student (which
was approximately 65% of the cost of brick-and-mortar
education)
Barbour (2012) St. Clair Virtual Learning Academy cost 16% less in 2009-
10 and was projected to cost 7% less in 2010-11 to provide
full-time online learning than traditional brick-and-mortar
schooling
Fordham Institute
(2012)
traditional brick-and-mortar education costs on average
$10,000/student, full-time K-12 online learning costs
between $5,100/student to $7,700/student

21. • Mountain Heights Academy (formerly the Open High
School of Utah)
o non-profit online charter school based on “open access software
and open educational resources for course delivery and content”
o State Office of Education Public School Data Gateway grade: C
• Utah Virtual Academy
o for-profit corporation — K12, Inc.
o State Office of Education Public School Data Gateway grade: F
• Utah Connections Academy
o for-profit corporation —Connections Education, a division of
Pearson Education
o State Office of Education Public School Data Gateway grade: not
enough students enrolled and/or tested

22. • In the early 2000s banned cyber charter schools after
a case of extreme corruption between one school
district and a for-profit provider
• In Spring/Summer 2009, the legislature lifted the cap
and allowed two companies to each create one full-time
cyber school
o Enrollment capped at 400 students in the first year
o Enrollment capped at an additional 1000 student in second year (1
regular student for each 1 student from the State’s dropped out
roll)
o Enrollment beyond year two would be determined based on the
performance of the programs in those first two years

24. • In the Spring 2011, the legislature moved to remove
all meaningful restrictions on the number and
enrollment levels of cyber schooling in the State
o Finally passed no restrictions on the number of cyber schools, but
limited enrollment to half the size of the largest school district

25. Director of Doctoral Studies
Sacred Heart University
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com