You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Analysis finds lax oversight of online schools, despite scathing audit and efforts by lawmakers”.
Analysis finds lax oversight of online schools, despite scathing audit and efforts by lawmakers
Written by Nancy Mitchell and Burt Hubbard on Oct 4th, 2011. | Copyright © EdNewsColorado.org
Schaffer says: ““The core element here that makes online different is that it is completely subject to the marketplace and a superior level of scrutiny – and that is from the parents who care about the individual child more than anyone else,” said the former U.S. congressman who now runs a Fort Collins charter school. “Their judgment cannot just be replaced by a government worker.”
This excuse sounds just like teachers who say a child’s educational success comes from the parent, not the teacher. The marketplace is performing its magic: few winners and lots of losers. And while Schaffer is happy to let the marketplace shake things out (superior level of scrutiny!), as if we’re selling cell phones, what happens to the students?
Very interesting reporting. The story is interesting for one of its blind spots. It does not bring up much regarding whether the schools that are struggling — or their authorizers — face state intervention because of their low performance through the state’s accountability system that is used to judge all public schools.
We have a state accountability system that has evolved dramatically in recent years. It is designed to identify truly failing schools and then insist that that districts and schools both face sanctions if a school still struggles or if the district fails to improve the schools that it governs.
If the online schools are doing so poorly, and we have switched away from a specific oversight system for on-line schools to instead use the generic accountability framework used to oversee all schools, what has the new framework concluded about these schools? Are clocks ticking for required improvements? Or, is the new accountability system set at such a low level of quality that these schools are somehow considered to be good enough just as they are?
The corrective action letters in 2009 were not the result of an audit. They were the result of self reported data from the online schools in accordance with the 2007 legislation. When CDE issued the report based on that data (http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/2009_Annual_Online_Report_FINAL.pdf) it was immediately obvious to the online schools that the report was useless for determining and comparing the performance of the different schools. Schools used different definitions of reportable items such as course completions, budget information submitted was not reported consistently, even teacher-student ratios were not defined the same. In addition, much of information required for that report was duplicated in other reports required of all schools and districts by CDE, adding a tremendous administrative burden on the online schools.
The corrective action letters were rescinded by Commissioner Jones after the online schools documented the problems with the report, successfully arguing that it was too flawed to serve as the basis for any corrective action. They were not withdrawn as a result of any political pressure.
In 2010 the CDE formed an advisory group of online schools to explore the problems with the 2007 legislation, and to make recommendations on how to both improve the accountability for online schools while eliminating duplicate reporting and streamlining oversight. Those recommendations were largely incorporated in HB11-1277, which eliminated duplicate reporting requirements but added the requirement for all online schools to provide a detailed financial report. Prior to that legislation, financial information for district programs such as HOPE online, COVA, and Insight was combined into the district financial report, making it impossible to review the financial performance of just the online school.
The 2007 legislation also made online schools the only local education program that was under the diretct oversight of CDE, rather than the districts. I always thought that was a clear violation of local control. If CDE had tried to exercise that level of oversight over any other district program, such as alternative schools or charter schools, they would have been sued in a heartbeat. HB11-1277 restored local control to districts’ online programs. If there is a problem with the performance of a district’s online program, CDE has the same tools to address it that they use to address problems with any other district schools.
A number of people have asked questions about the data in the online series via these comment sections. I’ve tried to address all of the questions from the three parts in one document here – http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2011/10/06/25989-data-behind-the-online-education-series. I’ll post this in the comment sections of all three parts and link to it from the first-day story as well. We appreciate your close reading of what turned out to be a lengthy project and your desire to know more about the numbers.