SUBCOMMITTEE ON VIRTUAL
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Sept. 5, 2008
300-A Public Service Building
Members: Duncan Wyse, Chair, Artemio Paz, Lewis Frederick
Staff: Steve Nelson, Jan McComb
Others Attending: Steve Nelson, ODE; Phyllis Guile, ODE; Morgan Allen, ODE; Lori Sattenspiel, OSBA; Marshall Coba, ORVA; Laurie Wimmer, Valerie Sebesta, OEA; Jerry Wilks, Jeff Kropf, Pat Laystrom; Oregon Connections Academy; Randall Greenway, ORVA; Kaaren Heickes, NW Center for Educational Options; J.D. McMahan, Insight
Chair Wyse called the meeting to order at 2:00pm. Present via telephone conference call were Directors Wyse, Frederick, and Paz. Chair Wyse asked those in attendance to introduce themselves.
Chair Wyse summarized the issue before the board. The current statutory and policy framework does not fit with what is coming in terms of learning via a computer. What framework makes sense? Are we getting high quality services to students at the right price? Who certifies? What are the ground rules for access? How do we structure decisions for the Legislature? What are other states doing and what have they learned?
Director Paz noted that the subcommittee should consider in its deliberations the impact of virtual programs on districts, especially small and rural districts.What are the types of programs being offered online?
Director Frederick expressed concerns about equitable access to online programs, as well as the quality of the programs and how they compare with each other.
Director Paz echoed Frederick’s concerns and noted that the student education plan and profile should be at the foundation of a student’s decision to take courses online. How would Title IA, IC, and III students be served? How would the new diploma requirements would align to online learning.
Director Frederick stated that another area of concern was the amount of teacher contact with students and families—calling once a week was not enough.
Director Paz agreed that student-teacher interaction was critical to success; there needed to be a feedback loop, integrated with the student’s whole education and plan. He asked for more information, that the Nelson chart be completed; he would fax staff the categories in which he was interested.
Chair Wyse asked if the stakeholders would like to voice their interests and concerns.
Laurie Wimmer stated equity concerns, such as requiring “learning coaches” in the home. What if families cannot provide an adult learning coach? Home schoolers do not have an education subsidy in the law now, yet through virtual schools they were receiving one, and this represented inequitable treatment. There needed to be safeguards in place to ensure that students were doing the actual work. Wimmer suggested minimum teacher response times for student questions. Finding of brain research that contraindicated exposure to a great deal of technology at a young age would be relevant in this discussion. Lastly, teachers using this medium needed professional development.
Pat Laystrom noted that NACOL was a good resource for information on this topic.
Director Paz agreed that overexposure to technology was a consideration. It was the student-teacher interaction that was critical to learning. He was concerned about home schoolers struggling with higher math concepts without adequate teacher support.
Director Frederick noted that companies varied in their response to new information and how often they updated their materials.
Director Wyse noted that a critical issue was who would review and approve the programs.
J.D. McMahon recommended the involvement of the NW Association of Accredited Schools; they accredit bricks and mortar schools. In terms of equity, there is also the consideration of what was equitable for all school districts.
Kaaren Heickes questioned whether the context of this discussion should center on charter schools. The discussion should have a broader scope; how we defined quality was the crux of the issue.
All subcommittee members agreed that it was not just a charter school issue but a governance structure issue, and should include full-time and part-time students.
Randall Greenway noted that Oregon policymakers had the opportunity to design an ideal situation. How do you create the best of both worlds—some classes online, some in a physical school? He strongly urged that parents be included in the discussion.
Jerry Wilks supported Greenaway’s comments. Policymakers needed to know who the students were—he could provide that data.
Director Paz stated that in addition, it would be helpful to know what courses were better suited for online learning—perhaps Greenaway and Wilks could provide that.
Director Frederick noted that students are at different developmental stages at different ages. It would be helpful to know the differences for individual companies—what’s effective at different ages.
Chair Wyse stated that it would be helpful to know what was happening around the country. The subcommittee should describe what its vision was: some combination of online and in-person learning. There was a lot of innovation happening. What might online learning look like in the years ahead?
Steve Nelson recommended that stakeholders weigh in on the five main topics in the next two weeks:
- Governance
- Funding – source and amount
- Equity
- Education program and student success
- Teacher quality/class size
Chair Wyse supported the idea of getting this input and perhaps more from the field. He thought it would be useful to know the name and organization of those providing input. Ultimately, the subcommittee should develop a list of criteria under which virtual schools could be evaluated.
All agreed to cancel the previously scheduled Sept. 22 meeting, until the feedback could be collected and summarized.
Chair Wyse adjourned the meeting at 2:58 pm.
1