Click here to read the full report in PDF format
David struggled in public school. His individual learning needs were not being met. Teachers were even concerned that he would “not ever be able to pass state test[s]” because of his learning disabilities, explains his mother, Naomi Handsaker. Yet, after “one year with ORCA [a virtual charter school] he has gone from that to passing all of his state test[s] and maintaining honor roll all year long!” Like Naomi, many families are raving about virtual schools. Yet, some powerful special interest groups would like to close these innovative schools.
Their weapon of choice? Senate Bill 767, which has passed Oregon’s legislature. In its original form, SB 767 would have killed many virtual charter schools in Oregon, depriving thousands of Oregon children of the public schools that have served their needs. After a loud outcry from parents and citizens alike (with even the Oregonian’s editorial board joining in), and after numerous cuts, SB 767 has been watered down.[1] Nonetheless, it will still sting – capping virtual school enrollment for a year until a task force can study how the legislature should regulate virtual charter schools and adding obtrusive red tape to the virtual schools’ requirements.
Capping virtual school enrollment is strange because since the legislative session began, legislators have complained about a dwindling state budget. Likewise, school districts across Oregon have laid off many teachers. Every level of government is complaining about a lack of funds. Yet, SB 767 would cap a substantial portion of the most economical form of public schools in Oregon.
In spite of the Oregon Education Association’s repeated claim that SB 767 is needed to “ensure that limited tax dollars aren’t going to advantage the few at the expense of the many,” virtual charter schools, like all charter schools in Oregon, cost only about half what it costs to educate a student in regular public school.[2] We spend around $10,000 per year to educate a child in ordinary public schools in Oregon.[3] But to educate a child in a charter school, we spend less than $6,000. Rather than preventing students from attending charter schools, we should encourage more children to attend the schools of their choice, to help with overcrowding in regular public schools. Increased charter school enrollment will cost the state fewer dollars and, accordingly, will allow more money to be spent per child in regular public schools.
Of course, cost is not the only factor. Countless parents’ stories, and improved state test scores, reveal that for many students, virtual schools are a life-changing solution. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education found that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.” The Oregon Education Association (OEA) has questioned the quality of virtual schools, but it has also affirmed the value of virtual education repeatedly. The parent of a virtual school child must closely monitor his own child’s education, because of unique requirements that the child have a learning coach, which also addresses the OEA’s concern that virtual schools are not transparent about spending.
As long as charter schools educate children well, how they spend their funds is irrelevant since they are less expensive than regular public schools to begin with. Parents protect their children and, given a choice, will find the best education for their children. They already have other options (like regular public schools). Quality will improve as parents choose among more virtual schools.
Unfortunately, one illogical Oregon state law requires that at least 50% of virtual charter school students live inside the district where the school is located, unless the school can obtain a waiver. As a result, some schools are inaccessible to many students. Since SB 767 also may result in the loss of these waivers, it could destroy competition among virtual schools, damaging their quality. But the freer the market, the more choices parents will have. Schools that provide the best education will come out ahead, while the others fail to survive. Accordingly, the legislature should lift the 50% cap from all virtual schools, to allow parents through the power of the market to work as de-facto regulators.
It may be true that there is an “equity of access” issue with virtual schools, as the OEA’s lobbyist has said (even though an abnormally high percentage of virtual school students qualify for free or reduced price lunch). Perhaps some children cannot attend virtual schools because their parents are not able to provide a “learning coach” as most virtual schools require. But the solution is not to limit everyone else’s choices (as SB 767 does), but instead to create more options for all students, especially the disadvantaged. More options can be made available in Oregon through education tax credits and other empowering legislation. And virtual schools, a valuable public school option, should be allowed to continue to grow and improve independently from increased (and needless) government interference. Voice your support for more school choice today by signing up as a supporter of the Oregon Education Tax Credit Coalition, and calling your legislators to tell them to lift restrictions on virtual school enrollment.[4]
[1]View SB 767 in its original form on the Oregon Legislature’s website at http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0700.dir/sb0767.intro.pdf; SB 767 as it now stands can be viewed at http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0700.dir/sb0767.b.pdf. Parents have been very outspoken against the bill (see, e.g., Edward Walsh, “Capitol Rally Supports ‘Virtual Charter Schools,’” The Oregonian, March 9, 2009, available at http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/03/capitol_rally_supports_virtual.html.
[2] The OEA also has repeatedly said that it is supporting the bill to “ensure that limited tax dollars aren’t going to advantage the few at the expense of the many.” See, e.g., OEA, Virtual Schools Bill Gets Hearing, at http://www.oregoned.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=9dKKKYMDH&b=5041339&ct=6928841.
[3] In 2003-04, taxpayers paid more than $10,000 per child for one year of public education, on average, including capital construction bonds. Matt Wingard, “How Much Does Oregon Spend Per Student?,” Cascade Policy Institute, April 16, 2008, available at http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2008/04/16/how-much-does-oregon-spend/. The Department of Education calculates expenditures a little differently but concluded that, on average, it cost more than $9,100 to educate each child in Oregon public schools in the 2006-07 school year. In contrast, charter schools’ funding is limited to ADM amounts.
[4] Visit www.OREDtaxcredit.com for more information.
SB 767 is a bad bill, no argument there.
That being said, much of the rhetoric touted by the virtual school advocates is as baseless and harmful as the rhetoric touted by those who pushed this bill. We should not support virtual schools because “they cost less.” The only reason virtual schools spend less is because they receive less. They do not receive less because it has been determined by the state that they cost less. Their funding level is based on the required distribution of funds outlined in Oregon’s charter school law. All charter schools receive the same level of funding. All of them. Virtual. Brick and mortar. Virtuals do not receive less because they are virtuals. All charter schools receive a portion of the ADMw. None of them receive funds for facilities or transportation. So to say that virtuals cost the state less because they do not need transportation or facility funds illustrates ignorance of the way charter school funding works. The law does not require districts to “pass through” federal funds or local funds or any funds except a portion of the ADMw. Districts receive all of those funds for charter school students, they just do not share them with charter schools. This arrangement does not save the taxpayers or anyone else any money. Districts are making money off of charter schools. This is a problem, an equity problem, an injustice, NOT something to brag about. And, again, only illustrates ignorance about school funding.
If you persist with the message that any kind of charter schools–including virtual charter schools–cost less or somehow save anyone money, I can guarantee you that you will be responsible for the legislature deciding to give these schools an even further reduced level of funding than they already receive. Is that your goal? If not, please pick a different message.
Virtual charter schools are ripe for abuse. Many of us in the education field are concerned that they are a backdoor effort to creating another private voucher system. The services they require are still more expensive than those delivered by public institutions. Additionally, though David (above) may have benefited from online schooling, where are we going to draw the line with parental/student use? What are going to be the criteria for use of public monies for private use?
I completely understand, and am partially sympathetic to supporters of education alternatives. I am a free market educator who has taught in private, charter, magnet and public schools for 12 years and have seen the differences, challenges and benefits of many styles. Public schools do indeed need competition, but they also need active parents and community members making change from within, helping battle bureaucracy and supporting strong teachers. Private schools and online education allow parents to opt out of a system instead of working to change it. Though there are a small minority of students who may benefit from a healthy home education, in the end this movement will be just another drain on public education. And, yes, I believe that our public schools are one of the few remaining Democratic institutions and need to be fought for, not abandoned.
I read your Opinion piece in the Statesman Journal, but my comment was too long to post there.
Thanks Christina for you well written summary, and your educated opinion on virtual schools in Oregon.
As a parent of a child who attends high school at Oregon Connections Academy (ORCA) I can attest to the value this education system has brought my child. As an “emotional” person, my child would start out great in public schools and then fade after a couple of months, having to deal with all the nonsense from her peers.
Removed from that reckless environment, she is a bright, funny, and creative person, and I have no doubt that she will excel in this world. Connections Academy has changed her life for the better. It changed us, her parents, too.
I’m more engaged in her education as her learning coach by making sure she turns in her assignments, communicating with teachers regularly, keeping attendance records, and sharing with my daughter my experiences and knowledge on what education means to me. Not that I didn’t try at the public school level – and tried, and tried, and tried – but teachers and administers seemed more apathetic to her needs. Not because they are uncaring people, they are just overwhelmed, I think, by the glut of problems they face in caring for our children seven hours per day, five days per week and try to make the round child fit those square holes.
It will be a shame if Oregon loses this valuable subdivision of our educational system. This time around, it will be on the heads of teachers’ unions and our legislature who in effect will lessen choices for our children’s education and thus keep to the monopolistic system for which they strive to achieve.
“Any teacher who can be replaced by a machine should be!”
Arthur C. Clarke