“Virtual Public Schools” Are Unaffordable, Unproven Models for Public Education

When I go to Wal-Mart, I like using the self-checkout. I like the autonomy of scanning the items myself and paying, without relying on anyone else to do the job for me.

However, when it comes to education, I prefer a more traditional route. Self-service education holds some advantages, especially for college-level students, but it has several flaws. If I am a student, I prefer to have that one-on-one interaction with instructor and classmates. I have taken one graduate-level online class in education, but I am a purist when it comes to pedagogy. A student, especially one at the K-12 level, does not acquire as much learning in an online class as a class taken in solitary mode, absent of stimulating class discussion and probing questions.

For one thing, a younger student, who is still learning communication skills, lacks the opportunity to interact verbally with peers in a completely online educational setting. In high school English courses in the state of Tennessee, communication is one of the eight required standards. One of the course-level expectations requires that students know how to “gain the floor in orderly, respectful ways and listen to and respond with civility to the ideas of others.”

Apparently, Tennessee legislators and those in other states fail to see some of the great disadvantages of online classes, a new methodology of learning, known as “virtual public school,” that is quickly threatening the public education system.

This new structure of online free public education raises several questions and concerns: Who pays for this “free” education? What is the source of the funding? Who profits from this system? How does virtual public education compare with the structured classroom environment?

Here is the way the virtual public school system works: a local school district signs up with a company who offers such a service. The company supplies the laptop, textbook, lab supplies, and any other materials the student may need to learn the required subjects. The company receives a generous portion of the district’s funding, which means taxpayers foot the bill, and the outside company profits. 

To start, there is the significant expenditure. In Union County, Tenn., where the district has contracted with K-12, a virtual public school corporation out of Herndon, Virg., the cost per pupil is $5,367. The school retains a small portion, usually around 5 percent.

Consider one school in one district with 900 students. The cost for the state would be over $4 million for a single school at this size. Tennessee has already funneled over $13 million into virtual public schools after the legislation allowing them passed earlier this year. Of course, K-12, the chosen company, chaired by former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett and backed by infamous junk-bond trading king / convicted felon Michael Milken, earned a profit of over $21 million in 2010 and projects a profit of $500 million in revenue in 2011. See how lucrative education is becoming?

At that rate, “virtual public education” has the great potential to bankrupt state coffers. How can such a costly endeavor amount to “cutting back” when, according to news reports, states are dealing with shortfalls? Any fiscal conservative who voted in the majority Republican Tennessee legislators, expecting them to make wise choices with the state’s money, ought to be up in arms. I’m rather liberal when it comes to some pecuniary measures, but even I know this one is way over the top.

Let’s not even consider the cost. What about the validity of the method? In essence, the setup works very much like homeschooling. The parent is dubbed the “parental coach.”  Is every parent in the public school system qualified to be a “parental coach”? I am not sure I would want that role if I had no background in education.

Some may argue that some students do better in paying attention in a virtual public school, in an environment where they are isolated from distraction and potential bullying. And K-12 says its students are making “impressive gains” in academics. (I would say the same, mind you, if I were the CEO of a corporation with $500 million at stake and no scruples about the education of our youth.) However, there is no empirical research that bears out the long-term success of this model because it hasn’t been around long enough to conduct research.

And, again, there is the lack of socialization. Diane Ravitch, an education scholar and former assistant U.S. Education Secretary, said of virtual public schools in an article for Bloomburg Business Week, "This isn't going to turn out to be good for education or good for kids. When you think about people in isolation, sitting in their basements at home, not having to learn how to deal with people, how to cope with cliques, how to work out problems with other children, how to function in a group, it strikes me this is a hugely dangerous direction for our society."

Every citizen of every state should hold their representatives accountable when it comes to public education and its funding. This money is coming out of our pockets as an investment in our youth. And while public education may not be perfect, this model is not the solution to its ills. If we do not take precautions against such an infeasible model, we will witness the demise of public education in America. We might as well go ahead and dig the hole.