Untangling a virtual mess
A number of months ago on a completely unrelated post, right-wing conservative activist Rob Kremer asked if anyone on Blue Oregon was going to write about SB767.
This question is about a death penalty of a different sort...I am interested in the opinion of BlueOregon folks on the attempt by the OEA and the rest of the education establishment to shut down Oregon's virtual charter schools.
The bill is SB 767, sponsored by OEA, COSA, AFT, OSEA and a slew of Democratic legislators.
I was hoping at some point Blue Oregon would address this issue. There are 4000 students in these public schools right now. I know this is off topic, but do "progressives" support shutting down public schools like these?
Honestly, virtual schools are a cool concept. Kids get to work at home at their own pace. A teacher (or teachers) works with them and their parents to bring the child along through their lessons. It should be cost effective (no building to maintain, no utility bills, very little in the way of classified staff...etc). And I can see how, for some kids, this would be best for their learning style.
But after researching this for awhile, my personal answer to Rob's question: Yes--so they can get their crap together.
The online charter school that seems to cause the greatest ruckus is Oregon Connections Academy (ORCA). ORCA is an online charter school attached to the Scio School District.
Oregon charter school law requires that all of their schools be nonprofit. And ORCA itself is indeed set up as a nonprofit (note the ubiquitous righty Jeff Kropf is the President). The folks associated with ORCA have loopholed around that law by contracting out the running of the school to a for-profit entity, Connections Academy LLC.
ORCA has 2700 students. 15 of them are from Scio. The rest have "open enrolled" from other school districts or home schooling programs around the state. When these students enroll in ORCA, $6000 of State School Fund resources that would otherwise stay in the resident district goes with them. Even for the previously home schooled students, who never used to be counted in their home district. That means the resident district gets a bill from ORCA for students they'd never received state funds for, thus draining even more money from that district.
Some of it goes to Scio School District (which is why they agree to host the school). But the vast majority (95%--in a special deal ORCA negotiated with ScioSD) goes to ORCA.
ORCA then turns around and initiates a no-bid contract with the for-profit Connections Academy LLC.
Keep in mind that all of this is done with your tax dollars.
A look at the contract between ORCA and the Connections Academy LLC raises some red flags. (This PDF is a little confusing. Page 1 is a page from the contract with ScioSD, which I'm not referencing. Pages 2 and 3 are the relevant docs for this discussion).
On page two, the highlighted portion says, "Certain materials shall be designated by CA (Connections Academy) as nonconsumable. Such materials are the property of CA and are to be returned upon the termination of this Agreement..."
Uh..wait a sec. Aren't my tax dollars going to pay for this stuff? The computers and other stuff that's purchased, that's public dollars being used--how is it that it belongs to Connections Academy? When Scio School District buys a computer with taxpayer dollars, it belongs to the public. When Connections Academy buys a computer with taxpayer dollars, it belongs to them. Kinda sketchy.
On page 3, another red flag:
The Governing Board acknowledges that the programs, courses, assessments, individual lesson plans and techniques for preparation of Personalized Learning Plans of CA and its vendor(s) are proprietary in nature and the confidential and exclusive property of CA and its vendor(s). The Governing Board's access to this proprietary information is for the limited purpose and use as instructional material and monitoring of CA. Such access shall be revoked and all propietary information returned upon termination of this agreement. The Governing Board has no right, by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise, or to disclose the content of such property, except upon prior written approval from an officer of CA.
If I'm reading this correctly, all of the materials and documentation used to teach the kids is proprietary and confidential. That means that the public has no access to see how their money is being spent. We don't know if the curricula being used is in line with Oregon standards. We can't look at lesson plans. We can't see testing materials. Currently, I can walk into the office of my neighborhood public school and ask to view the curriculum, the school improvement plan, the Local School Committee information or anything else having to do with what my tax dollars pay for that isn't a student or employee private record. It would seem that ORCA and Connections Academy LLC don't allow the public to view that stuff.
All of ORCA's students work from home. They are required to have a "learning coach", which is generally a stay-at-home parent, who must speak English. Thus a single-parent or low-income or non-English speaking household (or a combination thereof) can't access ORCA. Here is a copy of the contract that the "learning coach" signs, which indicates the English-only requirement. The learning coach doesn't have to be the parent. It can be anyone 18 years or older that meets the other criteria. But as far as I can tell, it's almost always a stay-at-home parent.
I'm no expert on Oregon education law, but aren't public schools in Oregon supposed to be open to students of all income levels no matter which language they speak? And public dollars used to subsidize home-schooling? Hmm....
Additionally, regular virtual schools in Oregon have a 50% rule, under Oregon law (2005's SB 1092). This means that enrollment is limited to out-of-district students to no more than 50%. Apparently, the ORCA folks have found a loophole in state law because they're a charter school: no 50% limit. Apparently that gets them a waiver.
So these guys can drain as much money out of other school districts as they can get students to enroll. I'm sure their slick marketing doesn't hurt that cause.
Kropf's role with the school is, as I noted, the President of the nonprofit side. State Representative Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville), a somewhat dubious character in his own right, has something to do with curriculum, although I'm not exactly sure what. But he gets paid by ORCA to do it, according to his Statement of Economic Interest (note: he spelled "curriculum" wrong...oy). Former Republican State Rep. Jerry Krummel is (or has been) involved, too.
Kremer's role is a little murkier to me. Kremer is the Treasurer for the Conservative Majority Project PAC, who has received some hefty sums from the ever-present Loren Parks. This PAC gives LOTS of cash to conservative Republican candidates for office. Connections Academy LLC contributes financially to Conservative Majority Project PAC.
Yup. Your tax dollars are going from the school into a tidy set of accounts to elect conservative Republicans.
Further, ORCA has undergone site visit reviews a number of times. These reviews were conducted by a pro-charter school advocate whose job was to discern whether or not ORCA was meeting all of Oregon's charter school standards.
The first review looks like it was a disaster. The school was dinged for not having a plan to deal with ELL students, no assessment system in place, no way to tell if student outcomes were aligned with state standards, no way to tell how they were implementing the school's mission or instructional program. They couldn't determine if their teachers were properly enrolled with PERS.
And that just scratches the surface. The thing goes on for well over 50 pages.
This was an especially ugly comment (from page 4 of the PDF--marked as page 9):
Based on data provided, CSDC is unable to determine whether the school is serving the students it specified as targeted in its charter (i.e. racial/ethnic composition representative of Oregon overall, 30%-40% qualifying for free/reduced lunch, 15% with special learning needs; and students whose families seek direct involvement in their education or those who are "homebound" due to illness or disability, far ahead or behind of their peers, at-risk of academic failure, pursuing athletic or artistic careers) and whether the school's instructional program and culture result in student achievement of individual and school-wide goals.
Ouch.
Other problems: recording and program-wide understanding of attendance, the serving (or lack thereof) of special needs students, a program-wide problem understanding what constitutes "performance", the lack of stable enrollment from situations where the "learning coach" isn't a parent, a lack of understanding of what certain budget line items are actually going toward, low student retention rates, the role of the "learning coach" vs the role of "ORCA teacher" is unclear and undefined, a need for the school to review whether or not the goods and services of the for-profit contractor represent a strong value for the money.
And this one:(from page 20 of the PDF):
Oregon AG Opinion Number 8273 allows for a chater school's nonprofit board of directors to contract operations to a private, for-profit entity and addresses the nature of that relationship as follows: "Because a public charter school must retain a right of control over the for-profit entity and provide procedural safegaurd to affected members of the public in relation to those aspects of the school's operations that constitute the governmental function of providing a public education." CSDC urges the ORCA board to thoroughly familiarize itself with this AG Opinion and ensure that is in compliance with its provisions.
A second evaluation was done later by the same person, with a slightly improved result. But much of the problems seem to still be in evidence.
The Feb-June 2006 summary of her findings are here.
Apparently somebody wasn't liking this person's critique, however. They quit using her and subsequent evaluations were rosier, if vastly less substantive. Sources tell me that the evaluator had little to no experience with with school evaluations.
ORCA failed to make adequate yearly progress in the 2007-2008 school year. Apparently they put out a press release for the 2008-2009 year, saying they've met. ODE doesn't have the just-finished year's AYP info on their website yet.
That brings us to the ORCA draft budget.
Some of the stand out line items:
Estimated enrollment for ORCA for 2008-09: 2000
Estimated budget for testing: $59,192
(About $29.60 per student)
By way of comparison, Beaverton School District enrollment for this school year:37,552
BSD testing budget for 09 fiscal year: $526,703
(About $14 per student)
Not exactly apples to apples, but close:
Estimated Teacher FTE at ORCA: 43
(I rounded up to 50 to include noninstructional staff, in case they were also doing development)
$1572 (including non-instructional staff estimate) per 1 FTE.
Beaverton School District: # of teachers 2,457
Budget for staff development (instructional staff only) 2,449,978
$997 per teacher (instructional staff only)
Those were the first two similar line items I noticed in the two budgets. It certainly seems like it's costing ORCA a lot more in operations costs, at least for these items. Seems odd. Why would they be so much more expensive? It's definitely worth unraveling and understanding this very substantive cost difference.
Senate Bill 767 has undergone numerous amendments/changes, so here's what I understand it does:
- Creates a two year moratorium on all virtual charter creation, renewal, waivers and growth of existing programs, pending further study. (Programs operating according to current law in public schools, whether district created or sponsored nonprofits are exempt)
- A work group of interested parties will be appointed to study the best way to provide accountable, equitable way to do this. Work group will scrutinize the true costs, quality issues, curriculum alignment to state standards and other relevant data and report back to 2010 Supplementary Legislative Session.
- The work group and the moratorium end in 2011.
- Quality standards for existing virtual schools, financial accountability and budget transparency for the use of public dollars for a private gain.
It's entirely possible that ORCA has solved some of it's problems. If they have indeed met Adequate Yearly Progress, that's a good sign. But the issues of transparency, the use of public dollars for "propietary" stuff that taxpayers can't see, the large expenses for line items relative to other public schools, the requirements for English speaking and the lack of access for those who don't have a stay at home parent are in need of examination.
The legislature should take this time out and make this more accountable to Oregon taxpayers.
|
June 19, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (89 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jun 19, 2009 8:24:10 PM
I'm glad this question is raised for discussion, for I have a number of pedagogical and philosophical questions.
To begin: in what sense is this a "school?" It seems to me that in many senses it has merely appropriated the name. A school has from ancient times (see the examples of the Lyceum and the Peripatetics) meant a group of people, and the essence of the "school" experience is that they learn in a social milieu.
What OCA does, in my opinion, is that it takes the master metaphor of today's age, which is commerce, and then it re-imagines learning as a commercial exchange, which it is not. Knowledge is simply not a commodity. It is not as though the teacher has the lemonade and Socrates wisely pours it from his pitcher into Sally's cup.
So: OCA may be a good thing, it may be useful for some people, it may be therapeutic, but it is not a "school" in the sense that I understand it and in the sense that it can accomplish the better purposes (I know all the bad ones as well) that public schools are charged with. Think John Dewey. If you dare, dream Paulo Freire. (poetry intended)
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 19, 2009 8:37:56 PM
Trying to stop or slow down the growth of virtual, online schools is bad for our children and bad for our economic development. As I put it on my own blog (here): “This “go-it-slow approach” misses one central point: online or virtual educational programs are a growth industry. They are an economic opportunity for Oregon, nationally and internationally, not just an adaptation issue for our public educational system, both K-12 and Higher Ed. Just as the digital revolution is reshaping entire industries, it will reshape education. Oregon could be a leader and get some of the economic benefits. But Oregon would need to be nimble and move fast to get a competitive advantage.”
The digital revolution will reshape education substantially. For example, there are now very low cost higher education programs online. I do not see Higher Ed as we now know it in Oregon surviving for long. As I ask on another of my blog post (here), “Why should Oregonians invest in the Oregon University System when we could have many of our students studying for less?”
The digital revolution is now hitting K-12 education. Change can be messy. We should not assume that the same organizational forms, with all their rules, roles, and expectations, will carry over to some new and better way to educate students.
Oregon would be better served if we accelerated the transition to virtual, online education rather than fighting it. SB 767 is a disappointment.
Posted by: LT | Jun 19, 2009 9:04:07 PM
Dave,as someone who has been fighting the lack of transparency in our local school district, it seems to me that the same issue should apply to virtual schools.
If there is no transparency, I don't see it as a good thing " if we accelerated the transition to virtual, online education".
As long as tax dollars are involved, voters deserve to know the backgrounds of all those involved. I will say that I recall Krummel being a public school substitute teacher, so I have no problem with his involvement.
But Kremer and Kropf?
Wasn't Kremer involved in some sort of charter school in Portland that closed?
There are administrators in our school district whose job performance I would love to see more closely evaluated--get really tired of the idea of frontline workers being evaluated by a microscope, but administrators basically given the benefit of the doubt.
The strict evaluation of those administrators is also what I would like to see about the likes of Kremer and Kropf.
And don't call me an apologist for the "establishment" or some such rot. One of my relatives graduated from an excellent private school. I substituted at a Catholic school. That doesn't mean that either of those institutions is exempt from oversight.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 19, 2009 9:29:45 PM
@ LT,
I do not think we want to micromanage organizations that are seeking to create new forms of education. No one forces parents to send their children to these schools. That's the bottom line accountability that a online charter school operates under - the students can leave. As to accountability to the general public, we should know what we pay them and measure how well the students learn.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 19, 2009 9:43:00 PM
Dave:
They can manage themselves. But if they're going to use public dollars they need to be transparent and accountable.
Based on my research, ORCA is not.
I actually think virtual schools are a fine thing. But I'm not in favor of "proprietary" information that the public has no right to access.
And frankly, if the estimated budget line items for this school cost this much more than a brick and mortar school, especially given how public education is so very squeezed, we should be understanding how and why.
It's appropriate to halt this and fix these things. Once done, I'd be in favor of resuming it.
Posted by: LT | Jun 19, 2009 10:17:54 PM
" I'm not in favor of "proprietary" information that the public has no right to access. "
Just as I don't think any private company should "own" voting machines as long as a public entity responsible to the public runs the elections, the same should be true of schools.
If there was a performance audit as well as a financial audit of ORCA and it was found to be doing an excellent job of all aspects of running the school and educating the students, then it should be given a clean bill of health.
But given how involved COSA is in this bill, the rhetoric that "the teachers union opposes online schools" strikes me as trying to hide something about their finances.
We've had an experiment in this country with Republicans telling us that contracting out is always better value for the money than having the government do something.
As the daughter of an accountant and the granddaughter of a prosecutor, I don't believe the record of that experiment is that there was always better value for less money.
People with nothing to hide welcome audits as showing they are doing everything right.
People who don't want audits appear to be hiding something.
Everything I have heard about ORCA this year sounds like "we are doing great things--quit asking questions".
Sorry, Dave, I don't consider this micromanaging. But then, my political persuasion has always been more about the concrete details than about the "principal of the thing".
Lots of educational "innovations" later turned out to be less than the panacea they were claiming to be.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 19, 2009 10:23:41 PM
I'm all for virtual schools as a companion to a regular program of in-person instruction. These are all students in Oregon. There is no reason that the students couldn't do monthly classes that include in-person discussion, collaboration (esp. in a lab setting), and proctored exams. I'd also include regular in-person psychological evaluation to ensure the well-being of the child. (After all, they aren't going to a classroom daily where a teacher might notice abuse.)
Posted by: LT | Jun 19, 2009 10:43:59 PM
Good point, Kari!
Teachers and child care workers are "mandatory reporters" of child abuse. If these children are never seen outside of their home, what if they live in a situation which might not be healthy for them?
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 19, 2009 11:08:02 PM
@ Carla & LT,
Although I am not familiar with the operations of ORCA, let me respond on the "proprietary" issue because it relates to the economic opportunity I mentioned. I think educational officials need to be able to see anything that a student would see. We need that degree of transparency. But we are paying for access to that material not ownership of it. School districts, for example, buy and own textbooks, but the school district does not own the content of the textbooks and could not publish copies of the textbooks.
Developing online educational programs, as I understand the process, requires a combination of software, content and an instructional approach. All of these require investments to develop. I see no problems with the developers having “proprietary” rights. They need to recoup their investment. If we, the public, pay for the development of online educational programs, we would probably copyright (or whatever) to protect our public investment from others using it without compensation to us. I see a growing, but very competitive, market for proprietary online educational programs.
Posted by: Rob K | Jun 19, 2009 11:08:19 PM
Carla:
You have certainly spent a good deal of time deconstructing the online school arena, and for that you should be complimented. I’ll respond here to some of your points and assertions in some detail, but I will try to keep it brief enough not to abuse commenting etiquette.
First – yes, the non profit school does enter into a “no-bid” contract, in the sense that it decides which vendor it wants and then contracts with it. This is much the same way every public school district purchases curriculum. It isn’t a commodity, and so it can’t be put to bid. Districts choose texts and then buy them from the publisher. They can’t put Harcourt out to bid with McGraw Hill. They have different products.
The section of the contract about curriculum being proprietary is the same as most any software agreement. You don’t own the code to software you purchase. You are NOT reading it correctly if you are assuming that the public has no access to see the lesson plans and the testing materials used in ORCA. Anybody who wants to go review that stuff is welcome to do so at any time.
But the materials themselves remain the proprietary property of Connections Academy, just as any software program used by a school is still owned by the software company.
On the Learning Coach, you are misrepresenting the document you link to. It clearly says a learning coach is not required, and that the person SHOULD understand English, not MUST.
You say ORCA ‘drains money out of districts.” Not sure what that means. Parents choose ORCA, and the money follows the child. Does a “district” have some claim on that money if it isn’t educating the child? Why?
Your discussion of my PAC was disingenuous at best. Yes, I have a PAC. Yes, it raised and spent around $300K in the last election cycle. Guess how much Connections Academy LLC gave to my PAC? $1,000.
You characterize that as “Your tax dollars going from the schools into a tidy set of accounts to elect conservative Republicans.” That is the ONLY contribution Connections made to any political effort in Oregon. I think you are trying hard to give the wrong impression here, Carla, and it is dishonest.
As for the school’s annual reviews – again you shade the truth. The first review conducted by CSDC was not favorable. Thank you for printing the paragraph you did! It shows exactly the tone of the review. OF COURSE the reviewer would be unable to determine if the school was serving students specified in the charter – because it is illegal to even compile that type of information on families of charter school kids! In a charter proposal you say who you want to serve, but you have no control over who you DO serve. And you certainly wouldn’t compile information to prove that you actually DID serve kids who (for instance) “students whose families seek direct involvement in their education..”
The review marked down the school for something it not only has no control over, but that it would be stupid and wasteful to compile data on in the first place. Far from an “ouch” it is a great illustration of the kind of thing the review obsessed on.
The second review by CSDC was better, as you acknowledge. Then the Scio School District changed who they gave the review contract to. You say “Sources tell me that the evaluator had little to no experience with school evaluations.”
GET A BETTER SOURCE! Quite the opposite is true. The new evaluator had a lot more experience at such things than CSDC, which was essentially a one person shop. The new evaluator was Portland State University’s Center for Student Success, which is staffed by folks such as Jim Carlile, a long time public school educator, former Superintendent of Gresham-Barlow SD, former interim principal at Jefferson HS, among other things in his distinguished public school career.
The PSU evaluation was very positive, despite, as you point out, the school did not meet AYP that year. ORCA met AYP in every single category except one: testing participation for one ethnic sub group, where it missed by a single student. Every other line item of AYP was met that year.
And in 2008-9, the prelim results is that it not only met AYP, but that it again beat state averages in most every category.
You call this a mess. It is a success. It is educating almost 3000 students for about 50% of what the other public schools spend in all funds per student.
It is the most transparent public school of its size in the state. It is far more accountable than any other non chartered public school in the state. It has not only the annual evaluation, but an annual audit. Can you name any other non-charter public school in the state that has a school level annual head to toe evaluation AND financial audit?
I do appreciate you taking the time to look into it as you have. But you got a lot of stuff wrong. ORCA welcomes any and all scrutiny. School is out, but if you have a day in September I would welcome the chance to give you a tour of the ORCA HQ, show you exactly how it operates, give you a chance to talk to teachers, parents, look at the proprietary learning system, scrutinize the budget and audits – anything you want.
The fact is this school is succeeding in every single measure of success – financial, academic, satisfaction, transparency.
Oh – and more than 50% of the families it serves qualify for free/reduced price lunch. (And it doesn’t even get the Title I funds for it!)
Sorry, this did end up being long. If you want, I will just post it on my blog and link to that from here.
Posted by: Marcello | Jun 20, 2009 5:26:38 AM
As a parent of a Connections Academy student, my experience does not match the information in this post. Carla provides lots of data, but because the few things that I am familiar with are incorrect, it makes me suspicious about the rest of the information provided.
Unless it has been changed in the past year, the funding distribution percentages are not what Carla mentions. Just like for our brick-and-mortar charter school here in my school district, the district gets 10% of the per-student funding, and does not provide any services in exchange for that. Pretty sweet deal. Same thing with the Scio district, which gets a 10% for each student in Connections Academy, an even sweeter deal.
Just like in a non-charter public school, some of the educational materials are non-consumable. If a student uses a textbook one year, that book gets returned to the school so that another student can use it the next year. Just like with other charter schools and non-charter public schools, the textbooks belong to the school (not to the student) so that they can be reused. Same thing with computers (for those students who need one, mine was not one of them). Not sure why that is an issue in this case. It's a public school, and if something belongs to that school, by definition it belongs to the public.
If there is one thing I don't like about Connections Academy is their excessive focus on testing and measuring achievement. If you think that with No Child Left Behind traditional public schools do too much testing, you should check Connections Academy. The idea that there is "no assessment system in place" is not reality-based. As a group, Connections Academy students do better than their non-charter peers, IMHO because Connections attracts quite a lot of TAG and high achieving students whose needs are not met in traditional public schools.
There is no loophole that lets Connections Academy have less than 50% of the students from the Scio district. That rule came after Connections was already operating, and the school was grandfathered in. Personally I don't see any good reason why we need to have virtual public schools organized by school district. Outside of Portland (and possibly Beaverton and Salem-Kaizer), the school districts in Oregon are not big enough to create a virtual school in each one of them. Even brick-and-mortal non-traditional schools (for example magnet schools) are impossible to do in all but the largest 2 or 3 districts in the state.
Personally, I am pro-choice when it comes to pretty much anything, including education. Students and their families should have the opportunity to choose the public school that allows them to achieve their potential. Limiting choice in public education is not the way to go.
Posted by: barry morse | Jun 20, 2009 6:45:32 AM
FREE WRITING HELP FROM SPECIAL EDUCATION TO BA AND BUSINESS
www.TheEasyEssay.com is a free program that is being used from Special Education to college education, FCAT, SAT, ACT test preparation, home schooling, and educational rehabilitation, as well as in business for concise, organized and targeted memos, speeches, reports, and recommendations.
A noted side effect is that users begin to communicate logically.
**************
“I have used this technique with my corporate clients, my theology students, and soon with my students at Kaplan University.”
Dr. Kathleen A. Bishop, M.B.A., PhD, ThD.
“I got feedback from the teachers. They love it and we are looking at using it with some of our AT devices.”
Dr. Suzanne Pope Dobson - Calhoun High School (Special Education Department Head)
Thank You, Barry.
I looked at the site and even did a trial run. I will email this information to our Health Resource Consultants and put it in our knowledge base for future inquiries [with respect to] Traumatic Brain Injury.
Respectfully,
~ Erin, U.S. Department of Defense - Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 20, 2009 7:22:55 AM
Whoa -- autospam irony! An age of wonders indeed...
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 20, 2009 7:30:19 AM
Dave,
It's not just school district officials who need to be able to look at curricula. It's a public access to use of public funds issue. So journalists say for instance who say might want to alert public officials or parents in districts who are paying who might not even be aware of an issue or know to ask questions, or the parents themselves who are not sending their kids to OCA.
If the virtual school can't work out a mechanism to enable proper public access that will protect its commercial interests, then those interests are too commercial to be being paid for by public monies.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 20, 2009 7:37:00 AM
Oops, should have read Rob Kremer's post first, he addresses my question. (RK if you'd put lines between your paras you'd invite reading better. Call me lazy, but consider making life easier for readers anyway.)
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 20, 2009 9:28:56 AM
First – yes, the non profit school does enter into a “no-bid” contract, in the sense that it decides which vendor it wants and then contracts with it. This is much the same way every public school district purchases curriculum. It isn’t a commodity, and so it can’t be put to bid. Districts choose texts and then buy them from the publisher. They can’t put Harcourt out to bid with McGraw Hill. They have different products.
Yes, but a book publisher isn't running all of the operations for the school. What's happening with Connections Academy LLC is very similar to what Blackwater did for the U.S. military. It is in fact a service, and a bid for services from multiple contractors would be absolutely appropriate.
The section of the contract about curriculum being proprietary is the same as most any software agreement. You don’t own the code to software you purchase. You are NOT reading it correctly if you are assuming that the public has no access to see the lesson plans and the testing materials used in ORCA. Anybody who wants to go review that stuff is welcome to do so at any time.
I disagree. The contract is very specific. Information about the curriculum, lesson plans, etc is private. It's my understanding that there have been asks to examine these things to see if they're aligned with Oregon standards..and the "it's proprietary" line has been given in return.
On the Learning Coach, you are misrepresenting the document you link to. It clearly says a learning coach is not required, and that the person SHOULD understand English, not MUST.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, Rob. You're basically telling people that they need to speak English to do this. That's not okay to do with public education dollars. ORCA needs to be open and accessible to non-English families.
You say ORCA ‘drains money out of districts.” Not sure what that means. Parents choose ORCA, and the money follows the child. Does a “district” have some claim on that money if it isn’t educating the child? Why?
What I wrote on this is very clear: resident districts are receiving bills from ORCA asking for money to go with students that the district never got funding for. They're homeschoolers who were never previously counted. No money was ever attached to them until they enrolled with ORCA, thus the district is having to pay for a student that the state never assigned school funds for in the first place.
Guess how much Connections Academy LLC gave to my PAC? $1,000.
I see. So how much money would it have to be before it was not okay, Rob?
OF COURSE the reviewer would be unable to determine if the school was serving students specified in the charter – because it is illegal to even compile that type of information on families of charter school kids! In a charter proposal you say who you want to serve, but you have no control over who you DO serve. And you certainly wouldn’t compile information to prove that you actually DID serve kids who (for instance) “students whose families seek direct involvement in their education..”
You have as much control as any other public school, Rob. Beaverton (and I choose them because it's the district I most understand, having been involved with them for 13 years) compiles at least some of that information. And why would it be on a charter school evaluation form, if it's against the law for a charter school to have that information? Are you claiming that the reviewer or review service is incompetent?
The review marked down the school for something it not only has no control over, but that it would be stupid and wasteful to compile data on in the first place. Far from an “ouch” it is a great illustration of the kind of thing the review obsessed on.
Yet it's clearly important and worthwhile enough that the review folks decided it should be on the rubrick.
You call this a mess. It is a success. It is educating almost 3000 students for about 50% of what the other public schools spend in all funds per student.
They should be able to educate for vastly less money, there's a whole lot less staff, no brick and mortar, no utilities, etc. Yet the two line items that seemed reasonable to match up from both the Beaverton budget and ORCA showed a much greater expense for ORCA. I find that very problematic.
It is the most transparent public school of its size in the state. It is far more accountable than any other non chartered public school in the state. It has not only the annual evaluation, but an annual audit. Can you name any other non-charter public school in the state that has a school level annual head to toe evaluation AND financial audit?
Well we're not going to agree on this one. All of the information I found for Beaverton was on the BSD website. The information I have for ORCA I've had to work hard through various sources to obtain. It's very easy to find Beaverton's budget, demographic information, number of staff, curricula, alignment to Oregon standards, etc, all online. Not so much with ORCA, which is ironic, given that it's an online school.
Oh – and more than 50% of the families it serves qualify for free/reduced price lunch. (And it doesn’t even get the Title I funds for it!)
Sorry, this did end up being long. If you want, I will just post it on my blog and link to that from here.
Yes, many families who have a parent staying home qualify because they have only one income. That's the choice many homeschool families make. But we don't subsidize their education with public dollars because the family made that choice.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 20, 2009 9:29:51 AM
Unless it has been changed in the past year, the funding distribution percentages are not what Carla mentions. Just like for our brick-and-mortar charter school here in my school district, the district gets 10% of the per-student funding, and does not provide any services in exchange for that. Pretty sweet deal. Same thing with the Scio district, which gets a 10% for each student in Connections Academy, an even sweeter deal.
No they don't, and this is well documented in multiple places.
ScioSD gets 5%.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 20, 2009 10:08:02 AM
The significant phrase in RobK’s post, and the one that got my attention, is “It is educating almost 3000 students for about 50% of what the other public schools spend in all funds per student.” If that figure is anywhere near right, and if the students are making educational progress, then should we not pursue the growth of online education as a public policy? Or at least support efforts to expand its use where appropriate? Maybe over the next biennium Oregon could save the $200 million in educational funding in dispute now before the legislature simply by shifting more students to online, virtual schools. And maybe their education would be better than now.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jun 20, 2009 11:39:07 AM
Without taking sides in this dispute, I do have one observation:
We keep hearing from the mainstream media, especially newspapers, that if they don't survive, who is going to do the in-depth investigative journalism we need? I would just like to point out that no one in the mainstream media has taken the time to do the research that Carla has done on this issue.
Now as with any investigative story, the people being investigated also have a right to rebut those conclusions or question certain assumptions, as Rob is eminently capable of doing. But at least now the debate is over facts and specifics, not generalized arguments about whether on-line charter schools are a good idea or not.
Good work, Carla!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 20, 2009 1:26:52 PM
Dave:
Based on the equivalent line items I matched from ORCA vs Beaverton School District, I'm skeptical that it's the case that ORCA is educating students for less money. Of course ORCA won't have the building maintenance and infrastructure costs...but they seem to be much more expensive for things like staff development and testing.
Jack:
Thanks for the kind words. I must say that this was one of the more difficult posts I've written in awhile, especially given that I've been doing Metolius stuff at the same time. Once this session is done and the Governor race stuff gets through its initial announcement phase, I have to take some time off and recharge. LOL
Posted by: Richard | Jun 20, 2009 1:27:44 PM
Kremer noted,
"I think you are trying hard to give the wrong impression here, Carla, and it is dishonest.
I do appreciate you taking the time to look into it as you have. But you got a lot of stuff wrong."
Yeah she got a lot of things wrong. Deliberately.
I call BS on Carla Rove.
This hatchet piece of hers is the work of the OEA.
Her "research" and mischaracterizations were obviously provided by the OEA.
The OEA DNA is so noticeable in her smear that it wreaks of their MO.
Of course Carla and the OEA never apply any of this level of scrutiny, smearing, to any of the debacles the Oregon public school system has experienced over the past several decades.
Only when their mission is to shut down competition is their phony concern ginned up.
So never mind the farmed out, statewide (for profit) online testing fiasco, CIMCAM and many other flops that never get either the Carla concern or any accountability.
These charter people must be stopped!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 20, 2009 1:35:18 PM
Richard:
If you believe any of the information I provided is incorrect, then rebut it. The "OEA! OEA!" crying is simply bullshit.
You can either offer supporting facts to rebut my work and conclusions or you can't. So far, you suck at rebutting.
Posted by: LT | Jun 20, 2009 1:46:24 PM
Right on Jack!
But at least now the debate is over facts and specifics, not generalized arguments about whether on-line charter schools are a good idea or not.
Good work, Carla!
Right on Carla! Jack, that is the approach more public figures should take--discussing data vs. opinion or ideology.
It is interesting that no one wants to talk about COSA's role in the legislation. It is all about OEA?
COSA is not an active lobbying group?
It is like the debate on oversight of school district top administrator pay. If someone can provide me evidence that OEA is the reason that 17 years ago (according to our school supt.'s assistant) our school supt. gave all the top administrators in our district central office car allowances on top of salary, let's see it. Now the argument "we've always done it that way" is the reason for leaving that in the budget while reopening union contracts. OEA did that? Where is the evidence, or doesn't evidence matter?
We elected 2 new school board members who are going to be a breath of fresh air because they both mentioned the importance of data in their victory statements.
Pushing ideology or bashing anyone you don't like is not data. Period.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 20, 2009 2:47:33 PM
Just like in a non-charter public school, some of the educational materials are non-consumable. If a student uses a textbook one year, that book gets returned to the school so that another student can use it the next year. Just like with other charter schools and non-charter public schools, the textbooks belong to the school (not to the student) so that they can be reused. Same thing with computers (for those students who need one, mine was not one of them). Not sure why that is an issue in this case. It's a public school, and if something belongs to that school, by definition it belongs to the public.
I meant to address this point by Marcello earlier and then I got busy and forgot.
The contract clearly states that items designated as "non-consumable" are the property not of the non-profit, charter school, but of the for-profit contractor Connections Academy LLC. They are not considered, under this contract as I read it, to be public property. Even though they are things purchased with public dollars.
This is just one of the reasons that SB 767 is important. There needs to be a complete understanding and a transparency for what's happening with public money and materials that should be public property.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 20, 2009 3:19:44 PM
"(RK if you'd put lines between your paras you'd invite reading better. Call me lazy, but consider making life easier for readers anyway.)"
This post and comments remind me of a quotation attributed to Voltaire who was reputed to have included in a letter an apology for it being so long because he didn't have time to make it short.
For the record I'm in favor of public school systems, but they are not perfect and I'm also against monopolies. Parents and their children should have the option of an alternative, but such alternatives may or may not be better. Clearly, if public money goes into any alternative there should be some form of scrutiny by a qualified and unbiased public agency. Otherwise, we might get a less expensive version of the Cheney-Halliburton-KBR way of doing business.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jun 20, 2009 5:15:14 PM
Carla, as usual you have done a very complete job researching the subject. Unfortunately, and again as usual, you allow your pre-concieved notions regarding the best outcome to influence your reporting on the subject. then, once again questions about your style, assertions that you have erroneous conclusions or discussion regarding other outcomes is met with your stonewall approach.
I sincerely hope that you take up the offer to visit OCA in September and get more first hand knowledge and perhaps re-visit the subject. Public education in the brick and mortar model does not serve a good number of students and their families, a virtual environment should be encouraged rather than squelched at the bidding of the OEA and Oregon School Board Association.
According to Willamette Weekly, evidence is mounting that the bill, 767 was written specifically with the intent to crush OCA at the behest of OEA. If true, that is not acceptable. OCA is education several thousand students in our state and doing a better job at less cost. That should be something a progressive would be happy about.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 20, 2009 5:59:33 PM
Kurt:
Actually I had no preconceptions going into this. I did the research. There it sits. If you think it's incorrect, please show me how.
As I said in the piece, I think virtual schools are a really cool idea and I'm in favor of them. But we must have accountability and transparency with public dollars. We must also have alignment to Oregon standards. And frankly, the way that the State School Funds are redirected in this case is pretty bad for the resident district and needs addressing.
In addition, I'm dubious about the no-bid contracting and the apparent ownership of taxpayer funded materials by the private contractor. I think that needs addressing as well.
I'm also not seeing that ORCA is educating better at a lower cost. The two line items from the budgets that I could attempt to fairly compare showed ORCA with a much greater cost than Beaverton.
On the WW story, that's not what I read in Nigel's piece. I read that the ODE is being accused of assisting in writing the bill. But I also know that ODE assisted me in doing my research..and I'm pretty sure that they've assisted pro-ORCA folks with any information they've asked for, too.
I've also heard that an ethics complaint has been filed against Cindy Hunt, an education lawyer for ODE. I expect it will be dismissed outright, based on my understanding of the situation. But I guess we'll see.
Posted by: Greg D. | Jun 20, 2009 7:19:57 PM
As the father of a child who used "non-traditional learning" to complete high school, I am extremely skeptical about any criticism of those who appear to have discovered a successful method of offering education to those kids who can't or won't participate in a mainstream education.
If your mission is to identify substantive failures in a specific charter school program in order to improve that program, then I salute you and hope that the program(s) in question can be quickly adjusted to bring success to their students. On the other hand, if your mission is to carry the water for the anti-charter school public employee union folks, then I hope you fail. The thousands of kids who can't or won't participate in the traditional senior prom, football team, debate society, mother's tea dance educational experience will otherwise be left to suffer for the sake of union solidarity. That would suck.
Posted by: Rob K | Jun 20, 2009 8:06:42 PM
Virtual schools are significantly lower in cost than brick and mortar public schools. Below is a cost comparison of some Columbia County school districts that I did for Sen. Johnson. Other districts in Oregon would paint very much the same picture.
I did not include capital project funds, but did include debt service funds in the calculations.
Per-Student Spending Comparison
Ranier, Scappoose and St. Helens School Districts
Rainier SD 2007-08 Actual Expenditures (From ODE web site)
Fund 100 - General Fund $9,096,432.00
Fund 200 - Special Revenue Fund $1,668,824.00
Fund 300 - Debt Service Funds $339,687.00
Fund 400 - Capital Projects Funds
Fund 700 - Trust and Agency Funds $181,375.00
Total $11,286,318.00
October 1 Enrollment, full time students 1170
Spending per student $9,646.43
Scappoose SD 2007-08 Actual Expenditures (From ODE Web site)
Fund 100 - General Fund 15,754,525
Fund 200 - Special Revenue Fund 1,906,377
Fund 300 - Debt Service Funds 547,035
Fund 400 - Capital Projects Funds
Fund 700 - Trust and Agency Funds 54,736
Total $18,262,673.00
October 1 Enrollment, full time students 2145
Spending per student $8,514.07
St. Helens SD 2007-08 Actual Expenditures (From ODE Web site)
Fund 100 - General Fund 27,922,463
Fund 200 - Special Revenue Fund 3,775,384
Fund 300 - Debt Service Funds 3,135,136
Fund 400 - Capital Projects Funds
Fund 700 - Trust and Agency Funds $0.00
Total $34,832,983.00
October 1 Enrollment, full time students 3527
Spending per student $9,876.09
Cost per-student for ORCA (and other virtual charters): $5,800.00
Posted by: Rob K | Jun 20, 2009 8:13:08 PM
Carla wrote:
Information about the curriculum, lesson plans, etc is private. It's my understanding that there have been asks to examine these things to see if they're aligned with Oregon standards..and the "it's proprietary" line has been given in return.
Carla this is just crap, and the fact that you would say this shows you really don't know what you are talking about. It is state law that all charter schools must align their curriculum to state standards. If you want to see ORCA's alignment document you should just ask. It is readily available in its 4 inch thick glory.
To say that people who wanted to check if ORCA's curriculum was aligned to standards but were turned away is just ridiculous, and the fact you would say it really does reveal a bit of an agenda here.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jun 20, 2009 8:31:58 PM
Well, this discussion has clearly gone in a different direction than I had hoped, but in retrospect, I suppose that's inevitable. I'll take my more theoretical (LT might say "ideological," I think) concerns to another blog where that discussion might be more at home.
Carla says that "[V]irtual schools are a really cool idea" and LT applauds the fact that "the debate is over facts and specifics, not generalized arguments about whether on-line charter schools are a good idea or not," and I think that fairly reflects the general preconceptions of the group.
These are not preconceptions I share. The people who are ultimately behind the "virtual schools" movement (you do see how the progressive educators that you would admire would insist that this naming is oxymoronic, don't you?) have as their overt aim the destruction of the public school system and its privatization. That's their ideology. Now not every parent and teacher in the movement shares that goal, but that is where the money and energy is. Again, do the research.
So, Carla, although I admire the work you've done on this, I still need to ask a broader question.
Let's make a parallel with the development in the Metolius valley. Let's say that a developer came along and followed all the land development laws to the letter, and was going to somehow create several thousand permanent high paying jobs for Oregonians, and there was considerable public sentiment to let him do so. The only thing is, he would have to pretty much clear cut and permanently despoil that area of Oregon. Would you then favor the proposal?
Perhaps I am wrong, but my guess is no. My guess is that you would say (and forgive me if I am being presumptuous) something like: They aren't making wilderness anymore, and to irreversibly ruin it is not worth any conceivable economic price in our present situation.
The parallel is this. Wilderness, like education, is not a commodity, although late stage capitalism (neoliberalism) seeks to define everything by its market value. One of the things that happens in this environment is a kind of overreaching . . . the capitalists claim that they can measure the costs and benefits of all kinds of things (wilderness, education) that they are really incapable of measuring. They do this because there is a buck in it.
Now I can tell you as an academic that the tests that claim to measure our children's learning do not measure what they claim to measure in any scientific, reproducible way. In twenty-five years we will look back on these practices they way we look back on World War I IQ tests, or the practice of widespread lobotomies.
So my point is this. Of course the charter school people in general and OCA in particular are lying to people and breaking some laws and using "proprietary software" (cough, cough) and generally grabbing all that they can. They're conservative right wing Republicans. It's what they do. It's who they are. They can't help themselves.
But even if every i was dotted, every t was crossed, the opaque made transparent, and the crooked made straight, "virtual schools" would not be a "cool idea" as a "way forward." Think about what you want schools to do. Think about what learning is. Not that no students ever should not take any courses online . . . but "a school?" Think about people that have written and thought about learning the most, the ones that you admire the most, and ask yourself what they would do.
There is no virtual wilderness. There are no virtual schools.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 20, 2009 9:23:25 PM
@RobK
Is the $5,800 per student what OCRA gets paid as a charter school? Could you explain in a bit more detail the flow of public funds you receive (state, local district, what % the local district might take of state funds)? Do you receive other funds (grants, etc) that are not included in the $5,800 figure? Do parents or students pay for anything?
Thanks.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 20, 2009 9:33:15 PM
It seems reasonable to presume that modern technology could be incorporated in the education process, but when it comes to making a complete, or near complete, switch to a "virtual" school or classroom, then some skepticism is called for.
A good case could be made for making movies, but not just any movies, part of the curriculum. Exposing students to such classics as "The Grapes of Wrath," "Gideon's Trumpet," "Death of a Salesman," "All the King's Men," "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Diary of Anne Frank" and others of similar substance followed by discussions would be of immense help in educating high school students - and, in many cases, their parents.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 20, 2009 9:38:04 PM
@Joe Hill
I tend to agree with you that calling online education "schools" is, perhaps, a stretch too far. But like schools online education is a way of educating and learning, perhaps better in some ways, perhaps not useful in others. The digital revolution will reshape the institutions of education just as it has other businesses. In that process, we need to sort out what it can do better or at less costs and what it cannot. We are, after all, trying to give our next generations the best education possible, not seeking to preserve "schools" just because they are "schools."
Posted by: ORCA Teacher | Jun 20, 2009 9:56:11 PM
Hello, folks.
I just wanted to share an experience that I was a part of today.
As you may not know, ORCA celebrated it's first ever graduation ceremony today. This week, 50 students have met the graduation standard of Oregon Connections Academy, and have exceed the required current Oregon Diploma standards.
The state of Oregon currently requires 22 credit requirements, with 3 credits in English/Language Arts, 2 credits of Math, 2 credits of science, and 1 credit of Second Language OR arts OR technology credit.
ORCA seniors, meanwhile, must complete 24 credits, including 4 credits of english/language arts, 3 credit minimum of math (with a minimum of 1 credit of algebra and 1 credit of geometry), 3 credits of science (including 1 credit of biology and 1 credit of applied physical science), 2 full credit of humanities (which can include foreign language), 1 full credit of technology credit, 1 credit of health, 1 credit of Physical Education. These standards exceed the ones set forth by the department of education for final implimentation by 2014.
In addition, all ORCA seniors completed the required Career Related Learning Standards, which included a senior project, job shadow, and career education class.
The cross section of students was quite amazing. Our students range from a variety of backgrounds, and include students with severe physical disabilities that hamper their ability to be in the traditional classroom, students from low income single parent households, students with autism and other disorders that make the social interactions of the traditional classroom difficult, a 14 year old honors students that was held back in his previous school due to his age, a young mother who needed to be home with her infant child, and other students for whom this was the best environment for them.
The most common statement that I heard from parents and graduates today was that this online school was by far the best option for their students, and that if it wasn't available it is likely that the student would not have graduated from high school.
I'm not saying that our school is the best option for everyone. I am a STAUNCH support of free public education for ALL students in the state of Oregon. I grew up in Oregon, graduated from a traditional high school program in Oregon, have received a Masters of Art in Teaching from an Oregon university, am a highly qualified Teacher licensed by the state of Oregon, have taught for my entire career in Oregon. And I have NEVER worked for a school that put more emphasis on the success of EVERY student than I have with ORCA. It has the best, most highly trained teachers and administration I have ever worked with. It has by far the most rigorous curriculum I have ever seen. And it provides all of this with LESS funding per student than a traditional bricks and mortar classroom.
Next year, over 150 seniors will be attending Oregon Connections Academy. If SB 767 passes, these students may not have a school to graduate from. And very likely, a large number of these students will give up on working towards their high school diploma. And that's a serious shame.
In addition to the toll that this will have on students, there is the toll that it will have on the 65 highly qualified teachers that are currently teaching for ORCA. These teachers are all licensed by the state of Oregon, and are required to be highly qualified in their education level. If our school closes, we will join the hundreds of teachers that have been let go by their school districts due to budget cuts. Where will we go? Many of us have a large amount of experience, which right now is a strike against us in the current job market.
I urge you to think of the students and teachers that work for virtual schools (not just ORCA, but the other schools as well) as what we are: teachers trying to provide the best education for our students; and students who want to succeed and prosper with their education.
Posted by: Rob K | Jun 20, 2009 10:11:58 PM
Dave Porter:
Here is how it works:
Ther per-student funding schools receive is called the "ADM." The ADM varies district to district a little, but it was in the neighborhood of $6,000 last year. School districts have other revenue streams that go into their all-funds budgets, but the amount that comes from the state general fund and local property taxes comes to about 6K.
When a student enrolls in ORCA, the Scio School district counts that student for purposes of receiving the ADM funds, and then it passes 95% on to ORCA. (The remainder is split between Scio and whichever school district the student came from.)
For ORCA, the ADM funds are pretty much the whole revenue picture. They did receive a state charter school planning/implementation grant the first two years, totaling about $300K. But I am pretty sure they don't get significant grant funds at this point.
No students pay any tuition or are charged to attend. It is a public school.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 21, 2009 8:44:13 AM
My wife and I have a friend who is among the very small African-American minority here in Central Oregon. Her daughter was given a hard time in high school, presumably because of race or culture, and had to be home-schooled by the mother who had to work from scratch to be a teacher, in addition to working for an income. It appears very likely that ORCA or something similar could have been of help in this and all too many similar situations.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 21, 2009 9:17:29 AM
Carla this is just crap, and the fact that you would say this shows you really don't know what you are talking about. It is state law that all charter schools must align their curriculum to state standards. If you want to see ORCA's alignment document you should just ask. It is readily available in its 4 inch thick glory.
Okay, Rob. I'm asking. I'd like to see it. Given that ORCA is an online school, I think it's reasonable to get that information in email or from the school's website. Can you please advise how we can make that happen?
In addition, who was in charge of assessing the alignment?
To say that people who wanted to check if ORCA's curriculum was aligned to standards but were turned away is just ridiculous, and the fact you would say it really does reveal a bit of an agenda here.
Agenda? I have no stake in this, Rob, other than the truth. What's your skin in this game, to use a euphemism? Your PAC has benefited financially, as has already been noted. What other relationship do you have with ORCA?
In addition, you say that ORCA is educating students at 50% of the cost of a brick and mortar school (a claim to which I find dubious, based on my look at the budget). But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Why should the taxpayers be sending ORCA $6000 if it only costs $3000 to do the job?
Also, the comparison with St Helens, Scappoose is sketchy. Those districts have a legal obligation to provide transportation for students, special needs programs, feeding students who qualify for free and reduced lunch, etc. You're not comparing apples to apples.
These districts also provide extra curricular activities at no cost to parents. This has been a bone of contention at ORCA. For example, the two young girls from Bend/LaPine SD who enrolled in ORCA after having trouble in school, also played in the orchestra at the resident school they'd attended. Yet when moving to ORCA, they were forced to pay tuition for orchestra because ORCA wouldn't take care of the cost.
A more fair and reasonable budget comparison would be to look at the equivalent budget line items from ORCA and those other districts, as I did with ORCA v. Beaverton. Looking at the per student cost as a whole with a brick and mortar vs online student is not even close to an accurate assessment. Especially given that brick and mortar public schools are required to take everyone. ORCA deliberately encourages non-english, lower income families from participation.
To the ORCA teacher, why would SB767 mess up graduation for seniors? If the work they're doing is aligned to Oregon standards and they've met the state benchmarks, their work should transfer to their resident school. Why wouldn't it?
In addition, its my understanding that the PTA is now involved and supporting SB 767, after not choosing to participate at the outset. Sources tell me that parents who've left the program are complaining that it can take 2 weeks to get assistance from ORCA teachers when needed. Can you talk about the student/teacher ratio? What's your average response time for assisting with problems for learning coaches?
Posted by: fbear | Jun 21, 2009 9:26:32 AM
Rob, could you provide a budget and enrollment breakdown for ORCA like you did for the other Columbia County districts? It seems a little odd to provide so much detail for the districts, but not for ORCA.
A big part of Carla's point is that the districts are much more transparent in how they receive and spend money than ORCA, and you're contributing to that.
Is the ORCA budget that opaque that you're not able to find any details?
Posted by: rw | Jun 21, 2009 9:47:21 AM
Bill, I hear you on that. BUT, as a native family mom, I do not believe that shifting the scene is the answer. THe answer is to force the school district to deal with the problem. The parents who opt out leave those of us who simply cannot or really really keep it on the line pushing for action and intelligence frmo the schools... leaves us feeling isolated, and leaves us vulnerable to administrations treating us as if we are making it up, or we are the problem etc.
I'm just not sure that opting out is really the answer. It only creates separate tracks and enshrines the issues that must be dealt with.
Posted by: ORCA Teacher | Jun 21, 2009 10:20:25 AM
Hi, Carla.
I can respond to the "Graduation in Jeopardy" comment that I made earlier. I did not mean that the students cannot take their credits from ORCA to another school and graduate from there, and it was never my intention to infer that. ORCA is fully accredited, and our credits transfer to other schools in Oregon.
What I meant was that the students and parents have indicated to me that if ORCA was not present, they would have CHOSEN note to continue with graduation with their local school system. Because they have a choice in Oregon, they have chosen the online school to meet requirements.
They would have the choice, I guess, to go back to the brick and mortar environment to finish their schooling, with the credits that they have completed from ORCA. However, for my medically fragile students, for my Autistic students where the mainstream classroom does not fit for them socially though they can complete high levels of course work, for my students whose parents are out of work and the income for their jobs that they can work while completing their school work at night, while they can CHOOSE to complete their graduation requirements at another school, that option really isn't a choice at all.
As for response times for learning coaches, I respond to my webmail requests, phone messages, etc. as soon as I receive them. ORCA standards state that teachers have 24 hours to respond to questions from parents and students. Student contact and response time is something that is part of our teacher evaluation. If this standard is not being met by individual teachers, discipline occurs. In years past this has been a problem for our school, and it is something that we are continuously improving.
However, I must offer this: the sheer amount of information that is available to a student and their families is significantly more than is available in a bricks and mortar classroom. The students and family can see the student's grades in real time (they have access to the students gradebook on the learning management system at all times). The teacher's home office phone number and email address are present on the student home page at all times. There are student and teacher message boards that are available. Real time virtual classroom time is available at least once a week for any student that chooses to attend these sessions for every teacher. Face to face contacts with teachers occur throughout the year for parent to meet their student's teachers and speak to them if they choose to participate. The student has their content level teachers, but also have an advisory teacher that can answer a ton of their questions. Can a parent ask to see their student's gradebooks from their brick and mortar teachers in real time from their home computer? Can they access the student's teachers by email or phone during school hours at any time? I have to say that I've never had the parent interaction that I have now when I was in the brick and mortar classroom. It's daily contact if they choose to have it, compared to thrice yearly contact during parent teacher conferences.
Have there been problems with families not getting phone contacts back from teachers? Yes. But like every school, we are improving this. But the most common issue I have had isn't that parents have asked for help and not received a reply, but rather that there are parents that have INTENSE ACCESS TO THEIR STUDENT'S TEACHERS, and don't choose to use it.
I do not have the hard and fast numbers of student/teacher ratio in front of me right now, so I won't comment on that, other than to say that my student load is pretty level to my load at my previous schools.
Posted by: rw | Jun 21, 2009 11:09:56 AM
ORCA teacher, may I contact you offline to ask questions about HS completion and if ORCA can be helpful in that wise? I would appreciate it if I could talk to someone besides the University online sales people who just want my son to spent hundreds on their course... and the school, that did not thoroughly research before they told us to go to, specifically, the expensive and poorly-proctored BYU online course to finish one credit hour.
I would be grateful if I could check to see if you are a resource, or if you can give me straight dope on how to get this over and done with so my son can just move on. It's a long story. SHort one if he can just get the one credit over with - he rejects taking to dope way out and just getting a GED. He wants to finish up. There have been complications. We did not have good options for him during the horrible experience with BSD. Only alternative schools where the acting out situation was only probably worse and would not address the issues my son needed help with.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 21, 2009 11:27:10 AM
@ Rob and Carla
(1) Rob: I, too, am interested in whether the costs per student are the same as the revenues per student you reported. I assume all that info is in the audits, that they are public and that we could confuse ourselves with details. But I would be interested in how much gets spent locally and how much goes off to the parent organization Connections Academy.
(2) Carla, the issue, if ORCA can provide adequate educational programs for less than $6,000, is not just why we pay them $6,000 per student but why we pay anyone $6,000 per student if $3,000 (or whatever) works. Surely, in general, there are students who require more resources than others. For example, the state school funding formula recognizes this and adjusts per pupil payments for several categories of students (but those resources seldom follow the student). The proposition that ORCA, either as a charter school or an online school, is skimming off the easier, and therefore less costly, students may or may not be true. I tend to think they have some harder to serve students mixed in. But it should be just part of the larger “equity” discussion involving brick-and-mortar schools. Many of our harder-to-educate students (poverty, minority, second language) get less resources generally than the easier to educate middle class students.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 21, 2009 2:57:41 PM
They would have the choice, I guess, to go back to the brick and mortar environment to finish their schooling, with the credits that they have completed from ORCA. However, for my medically fragile students, for my Autistic students where the mainstream classroom does not fit for them socially though they can complete high levels of course work, for my students whose parents are out of work and the income for their jobs that they can work while completing their school work at night, while they can CHOOSE to complete their graduation requirements at another school, that option really isn't a choice at all.
The difficulties for medically fragile, autistic and other specially challenged kids can indeed be tough. One of my dearest, oldest friends works with such children in a brick & mortar middle school in Washington State. I have raised a child with challenges myself too, so I understand in a very personal way those problems. And perhaps ORCA (or something like it) is indeed an appropriate answer for them. However, I think it's unlikely that if a student is a senior, they will choose not to graduate unless ORCA is running next year.
ORCA standards state that teachers have 24 hours to respond to questions from parents and students. Student contact and response time is something that is part of our teacher evaluation. If this standard is not being met by individual teachers, discipline occurs. In years past this has been a problem for our school, and it is something that we are continuously improving.
Could you talk more about this? What sorts of "discipline" are you referring to if a teacher doesn't meet the 24 hour standard? I'm assuming that this is written policy for ORCA (please correct me if I'm mistaken). Is there a written policy handbook for certified staff?
Can a parent ask to see their student's gradebooks from their brick and mortar teachers in real time from their home computer? Can they access the student's teachers by email or phone during school hours at any time?
I can't speak to what other school districts do for this because my only experience is with Beaverton. But yes, you can access your child's grades in real time online, as soon as the teacher inputs them. And you can also access the teachers via email 24 hours a day. You can't reach teachers by phone during instruction time, but you can reach them by phone before/after school and outside of instruction time.
But like every school, we are improving this. But the most common issue I have had isn't that parents have asked for help and not received a reply, but rather that there are parents that have INTENSE ACCESS TO THEIR STUDENT'S TEACHERS, and don't choose to use it.
Hmmm...interesting. It seems like the parents who are leaving the program (some 30% per year, as I understand it), are complaining about an inability to get a timely response. But I'm glad to know that ORCA is aware of the problem and as you say, attempting to fix it.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 21, 2009 3:00:11 PM
Dave Porter:
The proposition that ORCA, either as a charter school or an online school, is skimming off the easier, and therefore less costly, students may or may not be true. I tend to think they have some harder to serve students mixed in. But it should be just part of the larger “equity” discussion involving brick-and-mortar schools. Many of our harder-to-educate students (poverty, minority, second language) get less resources generally than the easier to educate middle class students.
If the average cost for ORCA to educate a student is $3000, then that would include all of the harder to serve students as well. So the question still remains: if that's the cost, why are we sending them $6000?
I have no idea if they're "skimming" easier to educate students or not. And that's not really my point..except to say that there does seem to be a problem with accessibility for very low-income folks and for non-English speakers.
Posted by: LT | Jun 21, 2009 3:38:09 PM
http://www.skonline.org/
is the site for the Salem Keizer virtual school.
I know they teach the medically fragile (or out on extended sick leave) students.
It is one thing to have such a virtual school directly connected to a school district in Oregon.
The question some people don't seem to want to answer is why it is better to have a virtual school run by an LLC on the E. Coast
http://www.connectionsacademy.com/check-availability.aspx
than public school regulated with state laws.
In some ways, this is related to the baseball/soccer debate: If you want to run a totally private entity, more power to you. But if you want public money, then public scrutiny comes along with that.
Let's talk data, people, not philosophical debate about the role of public schools or lobbying groups. Yes, COSA is involved in the legislation, so to say it is all about teachers unions is going to make some people angry, and distrustful that the role of the Confederation of School Administrators is not mentioned.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jun 21, 2009 4:50:30 PM
@LT
I did have experiences using SK Online (and BYU online and correspondence courses as well) five or so years ago. At that time, as I remember it, SK Online subcontracted with a regional or national online educational provider for math courses, maybe other courses as well. I cannot tell from their current website what SK Online does now. I'd be curious to know what their per students costs are for comparison, including the local vs subcontrator break out I'd like for ORCA. Presumably, they're collecting about the same ADM payments per student from the state as ORCA.
Living then and now in Portland, I had to pay out of pocket for the courses. Portland Public Schools did not have such courses and did not pay for such courses in other school districts (or from BYU).
I also find curious SK Online's policy on not serving students enrolled in Salem Kezier neighborhood schools. Especially in high school, a mixture of online and in-school course would seem useful.
Posted by: LT | Jun 21, 2009 6:13:36 PM
"At that time, as I remember it, SK Online subcontracted with a regional or national online educational provider for math courses, maybe other courses as well".
Very interesting, because I interviewed at SK Online about 3 years ago and don't recall hearing anything like that.
On another note, our local comm. college does online learning, dep. on the class and the instructor.
As I was saying earlier, either this can be a theoretical discussion regarding "this seems like a good idea" or else there can be data provided on what works where and what doesn't work,
10 years ago I took a technology class for teachers. Part of the class was talk by the prof. But there were 2 term projects which were most of the grade.
In one, we chose (from the papers on a table) the thumbnail biography of one famous person in technology. After all were chosen, the prof. gave out a sheet putting each of our people into teams. The individuals we had chosen were listed on various panel discussions. The people who chose the individuals in a particular team were assigned to bring the points of view of the various team members to the class on an assigned date, and lead the discussion not as ourselves but as our people we chose. As I recall, there were chosen topics for us to discuss. It was an evening class, and people who didn't live near each other had to communicate via email to make decisions about the team presentation.
The other topic was the technology we were assigned. Topics as different as wearable technology and newsbots. Each on a card, and one card given to each student. We had to present our technology to the class in an interesting way and using at least 2 different types of technology in our presentation.
It was a great way to take a class, because it involved student discussion, not just lecture from prof.
On the last evening, we were asked a question:
Did we believe this should be an online class, or a classroom class of the sort we had done that term. Most wanted the classroom.
My point is this. Maybe some students are helped (at least in some classes) by online learning.
But does that mean all subjects will work with all students in an online format? And should those students be involved (to the extent possible for healthy students) in activities outside the room with the computer--from field trips to extra curricular to proctored midterms and finals in a location outside their home?
I don't see whatmakes ORCA sacrosanct, and not deserving of the scrutiny given all other recipients of public dollars. And the "but it is all about the teachers union" rhetoric (as if COSA is not a powerful lobbying organization named in the mastead of the bill) only makes me more skeptical.
The attitude of some that ORCA is some miracle panacea for all of public education and thus does not deserve the scrutiny for use of taxpayer dollars that local folks expect of their traditional school operations also bothers me.
Does that make me a Luddite or something? I don't think so.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 21, 2009 7:24:50 PM
"Does that make me a Luddite or something?"
No. What you said makes eminent good sense.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: JTT | Jun 19, 2009 8:15:26 PM
Thanks for the great write up Carla.
In addition to the points you make, (as a former leg staffer) I remember trying to deal with OCA/Scio SD/home district/parents and get them to provide de minimus grant money for their students to take local art/music classes that weren't offered by the online school. If a parent enrolls in OCA and that student has any hopes of participating in a local band/choir/art department/etc they can kiss their money goodbye. OCA has it and they aren't giving it back, and they should have thought of that before enrolling. Pretty sad actually. Not to mention that OCA's costs are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than that of an actual school. So someone's making a healthy profit off of our school kids and sticking the taxpayers with a shaft. Glad someone's finally doing something about it.