"virtual" Schools: Real Discrimination
| Publication year | 2008 |
I. Introduction
In December 2000, the bipartisan, Congressional Web-based Education Commission stated: "The Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history, reshaping business, media, entertainment, and society in astonishing ways. But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education."(fn1) Since 2000, the growth of online education has spurred the technological transformation of K-12 public education.(fn2) A majority of states now allow students to supplement their school education with online classes or even to enroll full-time in online schools.(fn3)
Washington has at least six online schools, hosted by local school districts, that enroll students statewide.(fn4) For example, K12, Inc. ("K12"), one of the largest operators of online schools in the nation, and Steila-coom Historical School District No. 1 opened the Washington Virtual Academy ("WAVA") in 2006.(fn5) By November 2007, WAVA was the largest online school in Washington, with an enrollment of around 2,500 students.(fn6)
Online education has numerous benefits. It can offer flexibility in the time, place, and pace of instruction.(fn7) It can also level the educational playing field(fn8) for students in small schools who can take Advanced Placement and other specialty classes previously offered only by larger schools with superior resources.(fn9) Students who are failing classes can take otherwise unavailable make-up courses.(fn10) Moreover, online education can reach across the globe: for example, one online program partners with a school in China and uses native teachers to develop and deliver a Mandarin language course.(fn11)
Online education, however, is failing to live up to its promise of providing greater opportunity for all. Fewer minority, lower-income, and special-education students attend online schools like WAVA than attend traditional public schools.(fn12) Few or no transitional bilingual students attend online schools in Washington.(fn13) Although these facts alone do not prove that online schools discriminate against certain types of students, they do raise concerns.
As part of the public school system, online schools "have a responsibility to provide equal access to [their] educational opportunities[,] and restricting access to these opportunities can be problematic, if not illegal."(fn14) Given the rapid growth of online education in Washington, legislators must examine whether online schools that receive public education funding are benefiting the entire public or are benefiting merely a select group of students.
Part II of this Comment briefly discusses the history of online schools in Washington, including how they receive funding within Washington's unique statutory and regulatory framework. Part III then examines how online schools discriminate against minority, lower-income, special education, and transitional bilingual students. Part IV argues that online schools that are not equally accessible to all students should not receive public education funding. Lastly, Part V advocates for creation of a state-led task force to continually monitor the growth and development of online schools to ensure that policymakers stay informed and have a voice in this rapidly evolving industry.
II. Funding Online Schools in Washington
In Washington, the history of funding online schools with public funds can be divided into three stages. The first stage began in 1996 when the Federal Way School District opened the Federal Way Internet Academy ("Internet Academy"), one of the first online schools in the nation.(fn15) At that time, the fiscal rules promulgated by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) permitted public funding of the Internet Academy.(fn16) During the second stage, from 2003 to 2005, Washington State conducted significant audits of online schools,(fn17) jeopardizing funding for schools like the Internet Academy.(fn18) By the third stage, which began in 2005, statutes authorized funding for online schools.(fn19) Online schools have since boomed in Washington, especially with private companies like K12 entering the market.(fn20)
The Federal Way Internet Academy is an example of an alternative education program in Washington called "Alternative Learning Experiences."(fn21) The purpose of funding Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) programs is to give schools flexibility to serve a diverse student population, including "at-risk" students, nontraditional learners, and students who receive instruction at home.(fn22)
Washington's funding of ALE programs, including online schools, is unique. For example, only nine other states provide funding to support at-home instruction.(fn23) In addition, Washington is the only state without charter schools to have numerous statewide online schools.(fn24)
Early on, ALE programs were not authorized by statute but operated under funding regulations promulgated by OSPI.(fn25) These regulations allowed ALE programs to receive full per-pupil funding from the state(fn26) for off-campus instruction.(fn27) ALE programs were limited to high school students until 1995, when OSPI amended its rules to allow K-8 programming and to allow parents to provide part of the ALE instruc-tion.(fn28)
While substantially increasing the number and scope of ALE programs,(fn29) the new rules raised concerns both about the accountability of ALE program providers and about the quality and efficiency of ALE programs.(fn30) Despite these concerns, however, the state provided little oversight.(fn31) First, the absence of direct statutory authorization limited the legislature's control over ALE programs.(fn32) Second, although OSPI created the regulatory framework to promote ALE programs,(fn33) OSPI did not provide oversight or monitoring and instead relied on local districts to comply with ALE rules.(fn34) This absence of oversight by OSPI and the legislature allowed ALE programs to operate unnoticed by policymakers for nearly a decade until 2003, when concerns of home-schooling parents(fn35) about the quality and funding of ALE programs prompted the State Auditor's Office to investigate.(fn36)
The 2003 audit conducted by the State Auditor's Office found several compliance problems.(fn37) These findings spurned the legislature to mandate that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) complete a legal and financial review of all ALE programs.(fn38) Part of the audit focused on digital and online programs, which received temporary funding pending the outcome of the JLARC study.(fn39)
The audit found that statewide online programs, such as the Internet Academy, were not meeting three important regulatory requirements for ALE programs. First, the programs did not provide individualized learning plans.(fn40) Second, the programs did not document student hours.(fn41) Finally, the programs did not satisfy the requirement that students either attend school for at least five hours per week or meet one-on-one, face-to-face with school staff for at least one hour per week.(fn42)
JLARC addressed the first two regulatory issues by recommending, first, that course syllabi be substituted for individualized learning plans and, second, that estimated weekly hours be used instead of tracking actual student hours.(fn43) JLARC was most concerned about the face-to-face contact requirement: a lack of in-person supervision might not be appropriate for all programs, like those serving younger children.(fn44) This requirement was also, however, the most difficult for statewide online programs to satisfy. For example, the majority of Federal Way's Internet Academy students lived outside the Federal Way School District; some students lived more than 100 miles away.(fn45) Accordingly, JLARC recommended that OSPI create new regulations that waived face-to-face requirement in appropriate circumstances.(fn46)
The same month that JLARC released its report on online education,(fn47) Senators Tracey J. Eide of Federal Way, Rosemary McAuliffe of Bothell, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles of Seattle proposed Senate Bill 5828,(fn48) which statutorily authorized full per-pupil funding for online alternative learning experiences.(fn49) The Washington State legislature passed the bill unanimously,(fn50) finding that digital learning courses and programs could provide students with opportunities to study subjects that may not otherwise be available.(fn51) Online courses could meet the instructional needs of students with scheduling conflicts, students who learned best from technology-based methods, and students who needed to enroll in school only part-time.(fn52)
The legislature also noted, however, that "the state rules used by school districts to support some digital learning courses were adopted before these types of courses were created, so the rules [were] not well-suited to the funding and delivery of digital instruction."(fn53) Thus, the legislature intended that the statute would clarify the funding and delivery requirements for digital learning courses.(fn54) The statute did not contribute much to regulating online schools beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trial