Homeschoolers, Beware of Educational Carrots Offered by Virtual School Courses

Homeschoolers: Beware of the carrots of virtual school courses offered in Missouri in 2013. They may magically transform you into a public education student.

We recently wrote "Will Home Schooled and Private Schooled Students have to take Common Core Assessments" and state legislation about this issue being questioned by a private school in Deland, Florida.  The school was requesting clarification from the Governor about language which seemingly indicated private school credits would not transfer to public schools in certain courses because the private school tests were not under the same assessments (common core) as the public schools.

Missouri Senator Jane Cunningham introduced SB706  in January 2012 that should have triggered concern in the homeschooling community.  The bill contained language for virtual schooling which has been offered to home schoolers by various school districts:

A student may enroll in the virtual courses or programs
2 offered by any virtual education provider or school district in Missouri
3 that meets the standards of the department of elementary and
4 secondary education and is accredited. The department may offer its
5 own virtual courses or programs. Any student who enrolls in a virtual

6 course or program under this section shall be considered a public

7 school student and shall take the components of the statewide

8 assessments under section 160.518 that relate to the virtual course or

9 program in which they are enrolled.

The virtual nonresident student's
10 district of residence shall pay the school district or charter school
11 providing such virtual education an amount equal to seventy-two and
12 one half percent of the previous year's statewide average current
13 expenditure per average daily attendance.

(pg. 27/37)

What caught our attention about this bill in January 2012 was the  highlighted sentence above.  Like the private school concern in Florida, we were concerned that home schooled students taking virtual courses would have to take the mandated common core statewide assessments as traditional public schools.  From the witness statement MEW provided the education committee concerning our objection to various parts of the bill:

Virtual Schools

·         (p 27) 167.418  This section requires virtual schools to have accreditation.  It does not state which agency must grant this accreditation.  If it is MOSBE accreditation, which comes with strings attached, then the virtual schools will be no different than public schools. The language should be the same as the language for accreditation for private schools which allows outside accreditation with no strings attached.

·         Virtual schools would receive an amount equal to 72 ½ % of average per pupil expenditure.  This seems excessive and quickly drains money away from the home district. It could be used by districts as a way to make money. For example, a school could offer virtual courses for less money, take the state’s full payment, and pocket the difference.  It would be more reasonable for the state to offer a flat rate for virtual courses equal to the average cost of a course plus a computer or at the very least say that they may spend “up to but not exceeding 72 ½%.” 

Homeschoolers

·         This section also classifies anyone who takes a virtual course as a public school student who is subject to the required state assessments for that course. The language should read, “Any student receiving state money for virtual courses shall be considered a public school student. “ 

Was this legislation a back door effort to have home schooling students become part of the common core data base or an oversight?  Would home schoolers have to give up their educational autonomy by taking advantage of virtual online courses?  Posted on Facebook in February was this statement from a Missouri constituent passing on this statement from the senator's office:

Senator Jane Cunningham has removed the entire section dealing with the testing on virtual schooling in the new versions of our legislation. A number of analysts did affirm that the original language posed no threats to homeschooling families, regardless the substitute for both SB706 and SB451 will have no testing requirement on virtual schooling.

We contacted the senator's office and were told it had been changed and a draft was sent to us.   From the senator's draft:

167.418. A student may enroll in the virtual courses or
programs offered by any school district, charter school, or the
virtual public school established in section 161.670, provided
that the virtual instruction complies with the requirements of
subsections 4 and 5 of section 162.1250.

What does the May 18, 2012 final version of the bill (that did not pass) state about virtual schooling and testing requirements?  Virtual school students still would be under state standards and assessments (pg 29/46):

The students of a school district that has been declared
131 unaccredited under section 161.092 may be enrolled in the virtual
132 school of a district, the state, or any virtual program that conforms to
133 state standards, as an alternative to or in addition to such enrollment
134 under this section.

and from the summary of the bill: 

VIRTUAL SCHOOLS: A student may enroll in the virtual courses or programs of a virtual education provider or school district that meets Department of Elementary and Secondary Education standards and is accredited. The Department may also offer its own virtual courses. Students enrolled in virtual education must take the components of the statewide assessment that relate to the student's virtual courses or program. The Department shall withhold the tuition amount, as described in the act, from the district of residence's state school aid, and may seek local moneys, as described in the act. (Section 167.418)

What's happening in Florida legislation was attempted in Missouri legislation: the inability for private companies (virtual school operators) to provide their own assessments and curriculum aligned with those assessments.  State legislators either knowingly or unknowingly are mandating these private entities march in step with common core standards and assessments.

When folks proclaim they will just pull their children out of public schools to get away from government indoctrination...well, your child's education may just very well be just as "common" as the public schools thanks to your state legislatures.

 

 

Keeping An Eye On The Prize of Quality Legislation

The Missouri legislature has hit the ground running, as it always does this time of year, and is moving forward rapidly on a number of proposed bills.  Yesterday Senate Bill 706, which attempts to provide framework for fixing the problem associated with the unaccredited school districts transferring students to the adjoining accredited districts, got its first public hearing. The cyber world was abuzz with issues about it and several groups provided input through the public hearing process.  It should have been a time to admire the legislative process, where elected officials perform their duty to address issues that cannot be addressed solely by private citizens, and private citizens can provide input to their elected officials on the specific work they are doing.  But in the world of politics, it seems, it is very difficult to separate ego from process.

The way the process is supposed to work is that citizens can approach their legislator with issues that need some sort of legislative action. Those citizens, who may be businesses, individuals, associations, unions or lobbying groups can supply suggested legislative language or, they can leave it up to the legislator to write the draft legislative language. Once the draft bill has been assigned to committee and received initial committee review, it is typically opened up to public comment through the hearing process.  Here, the same citizens who asked for consideration in the first place, can comment on whether the proposed language meets their needs.  It is also where others affected by the proposed legislation can provide insight as to; where they find the language confusing or, how it might affect them and, show possible unintended consequences of the bill.

This is a critical step in the passage of quality legislation. The language must be clear and consistent. It should consider how the rules laid out in the bill will be applied in the future.  And consideration must be given to unintended consequences. When Missouri statute 167.131 of the Outstanding Schools Act was written in 1993,  allowing students in unaccredited districts to transfer to adjoining accredited districts, all the ramifications of that bill were not fully considered, and we are left, two decades later, to try to figure out exactly how to accomplish those transfers.  We cannot say, "Well, the great Senator X Intended for those kids to go to schools with already open slots"  because the intent of the authors is not noted nor binding several years later. The only thing we can rely on is the specific language of SB380.

Too often ego gets thrown into this step of the process. Some legislators don't like others critiquing their work and take such comments as personal attacks.  Lobbyists take it personally when a legislator says they cannot accommodate their request because it would not apply the rules uniformly. The worst is when lobbyists and legislators have so strong a personal relationship that they cannot see that, what they have both agreed to in discussion, is not actually included in the language.  Because they both understand what they were trying to say, it is hard for them to see what is actually on the page. The focus is rapidly thrown off the process of perfecting the bill (a term the legislature uses) and Jefferson City devolves into a sea of ad hominim attacks and useless argument whose only goal is to preserve ego.

We need to keep the focus on the process and the final goal: clear honest legislation. This should apply to everyone in the process, whether patriot or office holder, average citizen or paid lobbyist.

One more thought - If we are going to require high quality teachers in our schools, should we not require high quality legislators in our congress? If we are going to use the objective measurement of student test scores to define a quality teacher, couldn't we use objective measure of quality legislation as a yard stick for our legislators?