<%BANNER%>

An Examination of State Funding Models Regarding Virtual Schools for Public Elementary and Secondary Education in the Un...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043933/00001

Material Information

Title: An Examination of State Funding Models Regarding Virtual Schools for Public Elementary and Secondary Education in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (127 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stedrak, Luke J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: education -- finance -- funding -- models -- online -- policy -- school -- technology -- virtual
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study contains an analysis of virtual schools, public policy, and funding in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine what public policies and legislation were in place regarding the funding models of virtual education on a state by state basis. Furthermore, this study addressed how allocations were being made by state legislatures and if individual state public policies allowed for private/publicly-funded virtual school options. The analysis of the public policy was grouped into three models with the following classifications: Centralized Virtual School Model, Publicly-Funded Virtual School Model, and Privately/Publicly-Funded Virtual School Model. Each model contained the name of the state's primary virtual school, its year of inception, funding source information, and if there were evidence of any alternatives to a state's primary virtual school. Furthermore, this study contained a breakdown and analysis of data in terms of how a given state viewed its virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Luke J Stedrak.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043933:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043933/00001

Material Information

Title: An Examination of State Funding Models Regarding Virtual Schools for Public Elementary and Secondary Education in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (127 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stedrak, Luke J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: education -- finance -- funding -- models -- online -- policy -- school -- technology -- virtual
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study contains an analysis of virtual schools, public policy, and funding in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine what public policies and legislation were in place regarding the funding models of virtual education on a state by state basis. Furthermore, this study addressed how allocations were being made by state legislatures and if individual state public policies allowed for private/publicly-funded virtual school options. The analysis of the public policy was grouped into three models with the following classifications: Centralized Virtual School Model, Publicly-Funded Virtual School Model, and Privately/Publicly-Funded Virtual School Model. Each model contained the name of the state's primary virtual school, its year of inception, funding source information, and if there were evidence of any alternatives to a state's primary virtual school. Furthermore, this study contained a breakdown and analysis of data in terms of how a given state viewed its virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Luke J Stedrak.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043933:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 AN EXAMINATION OF ST ATE FUNDING MODELS R EGARDING VIRTUAL SCHOOLS FOR PUBLIC E LEMENTARY AND SECOND ARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES B y LUKE J. STEDRAK A DISSERTATION PRESE NTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FL ORIDA IN PARTIAL FUL FILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Luke J. Stedrak

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank every member of my doctoral committee for their hard work and guidance throughout my academic career at the University of Florida. I am forever grateful for their dedication and countless hours of help during the completion of my dissertation. My committee members w ere as follows: Chair : Dr. R. Craig Wood Members : Dr. Linda B. Eldridge and Dr. Bernard Oliver, as well as External Member : Dr. Maria Coady (School of Teaching & Learning)

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 8 Virtual Schools and School Districts ................................ ................................ ......... 8 Purpose of Study and Research Questions ................................ ............................ 11 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 Definitions of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 12 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................ ................................ ................ 14 Public Policy Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 18 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 19 Background of Online Education ................................ ................................ ............ 19 National Trends of Online Education ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Principles of Virtual School Finance ................................ ................................ ....... 23 St ate Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 Centralized Virtual School Model ................................ ................................ ..... 26 Centralized Virtual School Model States ................................ .......................... 26 Publicly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ .............................. 36 Publicly Funded Virtual School Model States ................................ ................... 36 Privately/ Publicly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ ............... 42 Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model States ................................ .... 43 Alternative Virtual School Mode ls ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 59 4 DATA ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65 Centralized Virtual School M odel ................................ ................................ ............ 65 Public ly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ ................................ .... 76 Privately Funded or Publicly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ .... 83

PAGE 5

5 Alternative Virtual School Models ................................ ................................ ........... 99 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 99 5 CONCLUSION / SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................. 103 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 103 Implications of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 103 Topics for F urther Research ................................ ................................ ................. 107 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 107 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 127

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Centralized Virtual School Model ................................ ................................ ........ 61 3 2 Pub licly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ ................................ 62 3 3 Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ ................. 63 4 1 Public Policy Mission Statement(s ), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Centralized Virtual School Model ................................ ..................... 100 4 2 Public Policy Policy Mission Statement(s), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Public ly Funded Virtual School Model ................................ ... 101 4 3 Public Policy Policy Mission Statement(s), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model ..................... 102

PAGE 7

7 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education AN EXAMINATION OF ST ATE FUNDING MODELS R EGARD ING VIRTUAL SCHOOLS FOR PUBLIC E LEMENTARY AND SECOND ARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES By Luke J. Stedrak May 2012 Chairman: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership This study contains an analysis of virtual schools, public policy, and funding in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine what public policies and leg islation were in place regard ing the funding models of virtual education on a state by state basis. F urthermore, this study addressed how allocations were being mad e by state legislatures and if individual state public policies allow ed for private/publicly funded virtual school options. The analysis of the public policy was grouped into three models with the following classifications: Centralized Virtual School Mod el, Publicly Funded Virtual School Model and Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual Scho ol Model Each model contained the name of there were evidence of any alterna tives to a this study contained a breakdown and analysis of data in terms of how a given state viewed its virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s).

PAGE 8

8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Virtual Education in the United States has grown in attractiveness with the emergence of the Internet and World Wide Web. 1 This growth has caused state legislatures to enact policies that attempt ed to take advantage of the perceived opportunity to impro ve the quality of student education, and the use of educational funding more efficiently. In 1997, the Florida Legislature passed legislation creating the Florida Virtual School. 2 any path, and 3 This concept exemplified a model for students to be able to progress at their own pace, and convenience. Since the Florida Virtual Schools inception, it has be come the largest virtual school in the United States and the continued growth of virtu al education has increased nationally. 4 Virtual Schools and School Districts In order for state legislatures to maximize the effectiveness of virtual schools, public education policymakers must inspect the constant growth of the virtual school concept and the development of educational technology. With the inherent inequity of the digital divide, state funded virtual schools could become the great equalizer in order to ensure all students are afforded the same educational opportunities regardless of socio economic status, race, or ethnicity. 1 Steven Mills "Implementing Online Secondary Education: An Evaluation of a Virtual High School." Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1, no. (20 03): 444 451. 2 FRS §1002.37. 3 http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx 4 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf

PAGE 9

9 The continued growt h of distance education required critics to examine whether voucher programs, in lieu of failing public schools, have been replaced by virtual schools. One could argue students who were previously ho me schooled would no longer save school districts money because virtual schools offe red a viable educational alternative funded by a state or local agency. As a result, virtual schools that receiv ed money from local school district s for each student enrol led would subsequently cause traditional public schools to experience a reduction in funding that could cause adverse effects for local education in many states. One could suggest that a result of the unwavering focus on technological advancement and dist ance education, virtual schools have become the de facto educational vouchers of the Twenty First Century. Since the inception of the Florida Virtual School in 1997, 5 the evolution of virtual schools throughout the country has been explosive. With the ex ponential growth of virtual education over the past decade, state policymakers were forced to forecast educational costs reflecting greater potential school choices found in virtual school options. Virtual schools operating outside of the traditional scho ol district structure complicate d data collection related to the significant growth in the number of public, private, and for profit providers of online learning. Virtual education for elementary and secondary students has grown into a $507 million market and continues to grow at an estimated annual pace of 30 percent. 6 In 2000, there were approximately 40,000 50,000 enrollments in elementary and 5 http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/quickfactsaboutFLVS.aspx 6 iNACOL: International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/press/nacol_fast_facts.pdf

PAGE 10

10 secondary online education courses. 7 In 2006, the Sloan Consortium reported approximately 700,000 enrollments in elementary and secondary virtual education. 8 The overall number of elementary and secondary students enrolled in virtual education courses in 2007 2008 was estimated at approxim ately 1,030,000 which represented a 47 percent increase since 2005 2006. 9 Currently, there are an estimated 3 million enrollments in online and blended courses in elementary and secondary education. 10 With the steady and continual growth of virtual education, policy and funding for virtual schools are becoming critical issues fo r state policymakers. Researchers also have indicated an increased need for virtual education to be structured in a blended fashion of online and face to face learning. It is likely to emerge as the predominant model of the 11 While not every state offered courses taught in a blended fashion, the literature suggested that blended courses should be viewed in the following manne r: Blended learning should be viewed as a pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment, rather than a ratio o f delivery modalities. In other words, blended learning should be approached not merely as a temporal construct, 7 Tom http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED462923.pdf 8 An thony Picciano, & Jeff K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. http://www.sloan c.org/publications/su rvey/pdf/k 12_online_learning_2008.pdf 9 Ibid. 10 iNACOL: International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/press/nacol_fast_fac ts.pdf 11 John Watson Blending Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face to http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP BlendedLearning lr.pdf

PAGE 11

11 but rather as a fundamental redesign of the instructional model with the following characteristics: A shift from lecture to student centered instruction in which students become active and interactive learners (this shift should apply to the entire course, including face to face contact sessions); Increases in interaction between student instructor, student student, student content, and student outside resources; Integrated formative and summative assessment mechanisms for students and instructor. 12 Purpose of Study and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine state policies regarding the funding of virtual schools within the United States. The policy analysis allowed the researcher to further examine the following research questions: 1. Did a given state utilize a virtual school funding model? 2. Did a given state utilize a C entralized V irtual S chool M odel, P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel, or a P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel? 3. When a state virtual school existed, did policy/statute allow for students to enroll in alternatives to the statewide virtual school? 4. s public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s)? Significance of the Study The significance of this study was twof old. First, the study determine d what type of virtual school funding model was being used in a given state. State policies and actions w ere then divided into three separate categories classified by what form of virtual school model a given state utilized The results were classified concerning these attributes. rmulas allowed the researcher to create an overview of how virtual schooling was being 12 Charles Dziuban, Joel Hartman & Patsy Moskal. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf

PAGE 12

12 financed in the United States. The virtual school funding formula synopsis itself can be used to address how state funding mechanisms can offer more flexibility and edu cational options for elementary and secondary level students. Limitations of the Study Due to virtual school funding being a moderately new educational concept, there was a limited amount of research in regard to how to properly fund virtual schooling. The researcher pursued to advance the level of knowledge in the area of education finance by conducting this study. This study was limited to elementary and secondary level virtual education in the United States. Furthermore, this study did not discuss i n specific detail issues of equity and adequacy in regard to the funding mechanisms for virtual education in every state because of the varying degree s of state policies and data. The study also did not attempt to measure the cost efficiency of virtual sc hooling or student achievement. Definitions of Terms B LENDED L EARNING paced learning, live e learning and face to 13 V IRTUAL E DUCATION Virtual education was defined a s a formal online educational program for elementary and secondary students structured differently than traditional brick and mortar schools. V IRTUAL S CHOOL A virtual school was defined as an educational organization that offered elementary and secondary level courses through Internet or Web based methods. 14 Organization of the Study Chapter 1 was written to introduce the policy analysis that was conducted regarding the funding of virtual schooling in the United States. The methodologies and 13 Fernando Alonso, Genoveva Lopez, Daniel Manrique, & Javier Soriano E http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200402C035.pdf 14 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf

PAGE 13

13 structural de sign of the study were explained Chapter 2 A rev iew of the literature regarding financing virtual education, state policies, and litigat ion was presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contained a breakdown and analysis of data that were examined in this study and how a given state viewed its virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) Furthermore, Chapter 4 find ings were discussed in Chapter 5 and were as follows: significance of the study implications of the study topic s for further research and conclusions that were based on the outcome of the study.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS Given the design of the public policy analysis, the method and materials were discussed prior to the traditional literature review. In this manner, the organization of the literature review was deemed to be more applicable to the research questions. Chapter 2 explained how the structural design of the study was developed to answer the research questions. The research questions were divi ded into four sections as a means of understanding how state policies impacted the funding of virtual education within the United States. This study was designed as a review of educational policy and case law with an emphasis on materials published in fed eral and state courts as well as various state Departments of Education. However, at the time of the study there was no evidence of federal or state court cases involving the funding of virtual education. Furthermore, large assortments of secondary sourc es were used to provide background information, state requirements, content, and evidence to further answer the research questions. It was important to note that there was a lack of substantive evaluation methodologies regarding the impact of virtual scho oling on reducing the achievement gap. Public Policy Analysis The most in depth portion of this study was to determine the primary funding sources of virtual schools in the United States. In doing so, combinations of sources were used to obtain the mos t all inclusive results as possible. The following list represents the most commonly used sources that were collected to conduct this research study. Individual State Statutes Every state statute regarding virtual schooling was studied on a state by s tate basis. All virtual school statues were analyzed to

PAGE 15

15 reference what was legally required of an individual state Department of Education and its affiliated K 12 school districts. Furthermore, each state was analyzed on the basis of being its own indivi dual case study. Department of Education Policies. Every state Department of Education policy concerning virtual schooling was researched on an individual state basis. All policies were referenced manually by the researcher and the appropriate policies were analyzed on the basis of being an individual state by state case study. 1 West Law Every subject for this source was researched using the key terms of virtual scho what court cases dictated virtual school law in a given state. The court cases were then referenced manually by the researcher and verified for their ap propriateness in regard to answ ering the research questions. LexisNexis Similar to West Law every subject for this source was researched 12 online these terms determined what court cases dictated virtual school law in a given state. The court cases were then referenced manually by the researcher and verified fo r the appropriateness in regard to answering the research questions. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Similar to LexisNexis and West Law court cases dictated virtual school law in a given state. The court cases were then referenced manually by the researcher and verified for there appropr iateness in regard to answering the research questions. ERIC was also used to locate peer reviewed scholar ly materials to further provide background information, state requirements, content, and additional evidence to answer the research questions. Multiple Virtual School webpages The use of multiple virtual school webpages provided background information, content, requirements, and additional evidence to answer the research questions. 2 1 State Departments of Education polices used for in study included the following: Alab ama State Dept. of Educ., Alaska Dept. of Educ. and Early Development, Colorado Dept. of Educ., Delaware Dept. of Educ., Georgia Dept. of Educ., Kansas State Dept. of Educ., Massachusetts Dept. of Educ., Minnesota Dept. of Educ., Mississippi Dept. of Educ. New Jersey Dept. of Educ., New Mexico Public Educ. Dept., New York State Educ. Dept., Rhode Island State Dept. of Educ., South Carolina State Dept. of Educ., State of Louisiana Dept. of Educ., Texas Educ. Agency, and the West Virginia Dept. of Educ. 2 Vi rtual School webpages included the following: Colorado Online Learning, Community College System of New Hampshire, Connections Academy, E 4 TN, Florida Virtual School, Francis School, Hawaii Virtual Learning Network, iAchieve Academy, Idaho Digital Learning Academy, Illinois Virtual School, Innovative Digital Education and Learning New Mexico, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, Iowa

PAGE 16

16 Multiple educational organizations The use of content from multiple educational organizations prov ided background information, content, requirements, and additional evidence to answer the research questions. 3 Every state was reviewed and categorized on the basis of what type of funding model was used to fund virtual education. The researcher then cate gorized the funding of virtual education into three distinct models: the Centralized Virtual School Model, the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model, and the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model. As previously noted there were no definitions in the literature that addressed the definition of virtual school funding models. Absent any definitions, the researcher webpages, and determined that forty eight of th e fifty states individually fit into one of the three funding models. The only state funding models that did not fit into one of the three funding mode ls were New York and Delaware. States that utilized the Centralized Virtual School Model were as follo ws: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Wyoming. Each of these states contained evidence of a single state virtual school with a single public primary funding source. In addition, a Learning Online, Iowa Online Academy, Kentucky Virtual Schools, Louisiana Virtual School, Maryland Virtual Learni ng Center, Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunities, Michigan Virtual School, Minnesota Learning Commons, Mississippi Virtual Public School, Montana Digital Learning Academy, Nevada Virtual Academy, New Jersey Virtual School, North Carolina Virtual Public S chool, Northern Rhode Island Collaborative, Oklahoma Virtual Academy, Oklahoma Virtual High School, Oregon Virtual Academy, Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, The Texas Virtual School Network, The University of Oklahoma Center for Independent and Distanc e Learning, TxVSN, Utah Electronic High School, Virtual Learning Academy Charter School, Virtual Virginia, and the Wisconsin Virtual School. 3 Multiple Educational Organizations included the following: Connections Academy, Distance Learning Resource Netwo rk, EdSource, North American Council for Online Learning, International Association for K 12 Online Learning (iNACOL), Southern Regional Education Board, Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice State Educational Technology Directors Associatio n, American Institutes for Research, and The Heritage Foundation, Liberating Learning, Distance Learning.

PAGE 17

17 Centralized Virtual School Model referred to an online school that was derived from, or was under the control of a single central authority. States that utilized the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model were as follows: Alaska, Arkansas, G eorgia, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Each of these states contained evidence of multiple public virtual school options that were funded by a single public primary funding source. Furthermore, a Publicly Funded Virtual School Model referred to multiple public virtual schools within a given state that were derived from, or were under the control of a single central authority. States that utilized the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model were as follows: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West V irginia, and Wisconsin. Each of these states contained evidence of either a single state virtual school or multiple public virtual schools. In addition to the publicly funded virtual schools, states that utilized the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual Sch ool M odel offered a private/for profit and non profit alternative virtual school option for students. The analysis for this study was conducted in a Post Hoc manner. The study did not address the concept of creating new laws or policies to fund virtual e ducation, but rather to examine what laws and/or polices were already in place. The time period of the data used in this study was from July 1, 2010 December 31, 2011 for a total of eighteen months. It is important to note that legislative sessions may have created new

PAGE 18

18 laws and/or policies after December 31, 2011 which were not reflected in this study. A complete fifty state analysis was conducted to strengthen the validity of the study because the research questions dictated the need for the entire Un ited States to be used as the sample size. W ithin the context of the study, public policy mission statement ( s ) were viewed as political, social, and economic agendas for a given states virtual school format. It is important to note that even if a given s tate did not mention a specific public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) it did not mean that state would be opposed to another states public policy mission statement. Summary Chapter 2 explained the design and methods used for th is study Furthermore, it began with a list of the most commonly used sources that were collected to provide background information, state requirements, content, and evidence to further answer the research questions. Chapter 2 also further explained how the researcher classified each individual state by its virtual school funding model into one of the following three models: the Centralized Virtual School Model, the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model, and the Privately/Publicly Fun ded Virtual School Mod el.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter 3 contained an investigation of case law, policy, and literature applicable to the re search questions. This literature review was divided into four parts that addressed the following concepts: a brief backgrou nd of online education, national trends of online education, principles of education finance, and an in depth overview of state level policy regarding virtual education Absent a sound theoretical base, C hapter 3 contained state statute and policy as well Each section further addressed the research questions regarding the funding for virtual schooling throughout the United States Background of Online Education In 1992, the invention of the World Wide Web allowed online education to give students incre ased access to course content and new pedagogical methods of instruction. 1 The concept of the World Wide Web itself has enabled individuals to connect with one another on both a more international and personal basis. The very structure of digital communi cation has in a sense revolutionized the realm of learning for elementary and secondary students because they are now able to receive accredited instruction outside of a traditional brick and mortar classroom. 2 The literature states that online education at its core consists of three primary pedagogical modes of online delivery: Adjunct mode uses networking to enhance traditional face to face or distance education. 1 Linda Harasim, "Shift Happens Online Education as a New Paradigm in L earning." Internet and Higher Education 3, no. 1 2 (2000): 41 61. 2 Online Ed http://www.onlineeducation.org/history online education

PAGE 20

20 Mixed mode employs networking as significant portion of a traditional classroom or distanc e course. Totally online mode relies on networking as the primary teaching medium for an entire course or program. 3 Virtual Education in the United States essentially has grown from these three primary modes of delivery to a variety of virtual school optio ns for elemen tary and secondary students. National Trends of Online Education The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) released its 7th annual report on the national technology trends of 2010. 4 Over the course of the previous seven years, SETDA has conducted an annual national survey that examined Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Title II D). 5 The 20 10 report summarized survey data from state education agency technology directors from all fifty states. this report is to inform federal, state, and local policymakers on tre nds related to SEA and local education agency (LEA) implementation of programs funded through Title II 6 With that in mind, the current technology trends throughout the United States of 3 Linda Harasim, "Shift H appens Online E ducation as a N ew Paradigm in L earning." Internet and Higher Education 3, no. 1 2 (2000): 41 61. 4 htt p://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=6&name=DLFE 669.pdf 5 20 U.S.C. § 6301. 6 http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=6&name=DLFE 669.pdf

PAGE 21

21 America were identified via the aforementioned annual report that lists the following five national trends as critical to fully comprehending the educational technology movement: Trend 1 Scaling Up Success States continued to provide educational technology leadership by focusing Title II D investments on student centr ic, research based, technology rich learning environments that advance state and federal goals. Trend 2 Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness For the seventh year in a row, states reported offering a wide range of professional development, positioned as a key leverage point for extracting a learning return on their [sic] Title II D technology investments. Trend 3 Using Data to Inform Learning, Teaching, and Leadership Title II D investments are increasing the capacity of educators to access, analyze, and us e data effectively to inform learning, teaching, and leadership. Trend 4 Increasing Academic Achievement Title II D investments continue to focus on technology enhanced teaching and learning innovations that demonstrate positive gains in the core academ ic areas. Trend 5 Driving Innovation and New Educational Models Educators are taking advantage of Title II D investments in Web 2.0, interactive technologies, and broadband, by embracing technology enhanced learning strategies that include online learni ng, use of digital content, and web based professional communities of practice. 7 The International Association for K 12 Online Learning (iNACOL) also developed a set of standards to regarding the quality of online learning. The standards were created by a 8 The iNACOL organization itself is highly respected in the field of Educational Technology and its stan dards for ensuring quality online education are as follows: 7 http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=6&name=DLFE 669.pdf 8 International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

PAGE 22

22 A. The online teacher knows the primary concepts and structures of effective online instruction and is able to create learning experiences to enable student success. B. The online teacher understands a nd is able to use a range of technologies, both existing and emerging, that effectively support student learning and engagement in the online environment. C. The online teacher plans, designs, and incorporates strategies to encourage active learning, applicat ion, interaction, participation, and collaboration in the online environment. D. The online teacher promotes student success through clear expectations, prompt responses, and regular feedback. E. The online teacher models, guides, and encourages legal, ethical, and safe behavior related to technology use. F. The online teacher is cognizant of the diversity of student academic needs and incorporates accommodations into the online environment. G. The online teacher demonstrates competencies in creating and implementing a ssessments in online learning environments in ways that ensure validity and reliability of the instruments and procedures. H. The online teacher develops and delivers assessments, projects, and assignments that meet standards based learning goals and assesses learning progress by measuring student achievement of the learning goals. I. The online teacher demonstrates competency in using data from assessments and other data sources to modify content and to guide student learning. J. The online teacher interacts in a p rofessional, effective manner with colleagues, K. The online teacher arranges media and content to help students and teachers transfer knowledge most effectively in the online environme nt. 9 The International Association for K 12 Online Learning and overall literature regarding trends in formal virtual education mainly focused on staff development, pedagogical skills, and ways for teachers to improve student achievement. Actual funding a llocations for online education were rarely mentioned outside of general claims 9 International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

PAGE 23

23 that schools or organizations need ed more funding to close the achievement gap, improve educational quality, student achievement, and professional development. This was a comm on theme and limitation for the literature review of the overall study. The concept of virtual schooling itself has embraced the concept of personalized education for elementary and secondary students as well. The literature stated that the efficiency of digital technology for elementary and secondary student development depended on targeted outcomes, how technology was integrated into instruction, and the evaluation of student successes by properly trained instructors. 10 Principles of Virtual School Finan ce Education Finance Researchers considered education as an investment in human capital. 11 A close examination of the literature indicated the public school system in the United States was a big business traditionally funded on an annual basis. 12 Philosoph ical goals of funding high quality education for every student were widely b elieved to be a function of state s rather than local populations. The more centralized funding concept was rooted in the idea of all students having access to a quality education regardless of socioeconomic status. In education ones beliefs, values, and the basic economic concept of scarcity of dollars and cents. Rather, the amount of fundin g available, the way those funds are 10 http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm#issue 11 Vern Brimley, Jr., Deborah Verstegen, and Rulon Garfiel d, Financing Education in a Climate of Change (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, 2012), 1. 12 David Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and David Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools (White Plains, NY: Longman New York & London, 1994), 7.

PAGE 24

24 allocated, and the resources they provide are indicators of our collective hopes and 13 The literature suggested that the concept of further education could be equated with improving one s quality of life and benefiting society. Concepts of equity and adequacy were crit ical to public school finance. Legislatures and education policy officials were forced to fund a variety of ideals in order to fund an adequate education within a given s tate. Since the early 1990s school accountability movement, which was later amplified by the federal ly mandated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 14 the goal of state policy makers has been to improve financial efficiency and develop a funding formula to ac hieve a greater sense of equality. The funding of an adequate education must be viewed within the context of funding formulas that are developed to create equality regardless of school size or socio economic status. 15 The conceptual framework of school fin ance was rooted in both the concepts of horizontal and vertical equity as well. Horizontal equity was referred to as an equal treatment of equals in regard to the funding distribution to a comparable number of students. 16 Whereas, vertical equity was refe rred to as the differential treatment of students with measurable different education needs. 17 Therefore, vertical equity did not 13 http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_whyitmatters.html 14 20 U.S.C. § 6301. 15 As evidence by the state overview, statute and educational policies are primarily from the viewpoint of address virtual education. Furthermore, each state and policy within that state should be viewed as an individual case study. 16 Bruce Baker, Pr eston Green, and Craig Richards, Financing Education Systems (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, 2008), 98. 17 Ibid.

PAGE 25

25 view all students as being equal and addressed the concept of some students needing an increased number of resources to proper ly fund there education. In essence, the research indicated there were differing opinions about how to measure educational equality. However, there was a strong relationship between cost and quality of education. Yet, the difficulty was being able to de termine a difference between the concept in the following statement: the kid goes to school in the kitchen in their house, and the parent is simply in the next room work ing from home, as opposed to the child being in a brick and mortar school for the day. ctivity to some extent an opportunity cost. The opportunity costs become potentially but they can no increase to utilities a ssociated with having the child at home and online, and potential increased food expense (a little hard to judge). Additional numbers of kids. 18 The point that Baker made was that le online education were simply being transferred to someone or something else Baker ]pending less 19 Future research must take into account evaluating the entire cost of online education as opposed to just the general concept of creating more access as a means of lowering cost. 18 School Finance 101 (blog), January 10, 2012, http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/misunderstanding misrepresenting the costs economics of onli ne learning/ 19 Ibid.

PAGE 26

26 State Overview The researcher categorized the funding of virtual education into three distinct models: the Centralized Virtual School Model, the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model, and the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model. 20 There were no definitions in the literature that addressed online funding models. Absent definitions, the researcher examined all fifty states and determined that forty eight of the fifty states fit into one of three funding models. The only exc eptions were the states of New York and Delaware. Centralized Virtual School Model The C entralized V irtual S chool M odel was defined as a unified virtual school option for public elementary and secondary students within a given state no matter the school district or local authority. 21 Whether full time or supplemental, state virtual state education agency. 22 Based on reviewing funding formulas, the centralized models w ere publicly funded and offered one primary virtual school option for elementary and secondary students. Centralized Virtual School Model States Alabama. Since 2004, in Alabama, all online education activity was mandated through the state virtual school Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators, & Students Statewide (ACCESS). Concerning legislation, the Alabama State Legislature 20 The Funding of Virtual Schools & Developmental Technology in Education. 6, 2011). 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

PAGE 27

27 included a section on online education that governed ACCESS 23 The ACCESS state appropriation for FY 2009 2010 was $22.5 million virtual school budget. An annu al state appropriation comprised the majority of virtual school funding $11 million from the Education Bond Issue for statewide expansion of the ACCESS program. 24 Florida. In 1997, the sta te of Florida created the Florida Virtual School, 25 which has become the largest virtual school in the United States. 26 Although there was evidence of private/for profit and non profit alternatives, the state of Florida exhibited a highly centralized model. Florida Statute 27 required school districts to make virtual learning education accessible to full time virtual students in grades Kindergarten through Grade 8 or to full or part time students in grades 9 12. 28 As a method of dropout prevention for high s chool students who struggle in a traditional classroom setting, Florida Statute amended the statute to expand virtual instruction coverage to grades 9 12. 29 23 Alabama State 3 http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290 3 1.pdf 24 http://www.alsde.edu/FileViewer/AEN/September2008.pdf 25 http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx 26 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pu bs/virtualschools.pdf 27 FRS § 1002.45. 28 http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/HouseContent/Approved/Web%20Site/education_fact_sh eets/2011/documents/2010 11%20School%20District%20Virtual%20Instruction%20Programs.3.pdf 29 FRS §1002.45.

PAGE 28

28 Pursuant to Florida Statute, 30 Florida Virtual Sc hool's development of a state of the art technology based education delivery system that is cost effective, educationally sound, marketable, and capable of sustaining a self sufficient delivery system through the Florida Education Finance 31 Regar ding the funding allocation for virtual education in Florida, state legislators recently reduced 10 percent of per pupil funding for virtual education in Florida. 32 Idaho. Since its inception in 2002, 33 the state of Idaho has exhibited a highly centralized model for virtual education as evidenced by the Idaho Digital Learning Academy. Idaho Digital Learning Academy was the state virtual school for Idaho. 34 In 2009, Idaho established new funding provisions, incorporating a blend of virtual and tradit ional in struction, and allowed school districts to use up to 5 percent of the funding opportunity to offer virtual instruction or a ble nded learning option to their students. 35 T he state of Idaho defined time, sequential program of synchronous and/or asynchronous instruction primarily through the use of technology via the Internet in a distributed environment. Schools classified as virtual must have an 30 FRS §1002.37. 31 Ibid. 32 American School Board Journal http://www.asbj.com/M ainMenuCategory/Archive/2009/November/The Role of Online Schools in Choice.html 33 http://www.idahodi gitallearning.org/Students/AboutTheAcademy.aspx 34 http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH55SECT33 5504APrinterFriendly.htm 35 Ibid.

PAGE 29

29 online component to the school with online lessons and tools for student and data 36 The superintendent shall disburse the funds to the Idaho Digital Learning Academy B oard of D irectors who shall use the moneys to develop courses and maintain 37 Illinois. In 2009, 38 the Illinois state legislature created the Illinois Virtual School. 39 annual state appropriation 40 to meet operation and capital need costs. The Illinois Virtual School was a division of the Peoria County Regional Office of Education and utilized a centralized funding model. 41 It was also the responsibility of the student to pay $250 per course in the Fall / Spring semester s and $225 per course for the summer semester. 42 In addition to the Illinois Virtual School, the Chicago Public School offered courses that were delivered to students in a blended fashion. 43 36 http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH55SECT33 5504APrinterFriendly.htm 37 http://www.idahodigitallearning.org/Portals/0/Files/Board/2009_IDLA_Legislation%5B1%5D.pdf 38 http://www.ilvirtual.org/index.php?page=about ivs 39 Ibid. 40 John Adsit. "A Report to the Colorado Online Education Programs Study Committee." http://www.dkfoundation.org/pdf/FundingOnlineEd Jadsit.pdf 41 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum =5168&GAID=10&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session 42 http://ilvirtual.org/inde x.php?page=faq 43 to http://www.inacol.org /research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP BlendedLearning lr.pdf

PAGE 30

30 Kentucky. In 2000, 44 the state of Kentucky passed legislation that created the Kentucky Virtual School. 45 The Kentucky Virtual School was funded through an annual state allocation of $800,000 46 with an additional average of $300,000 from student tuition and district payments. 47 These student fees were $165 for a single se mester courses and $330 for two semester courses. 48 The state of Kentucky used a centralized funding model and did not have policy regarding the development and funding of virtual charter schools. Louisiana. In 2000, 49 the Louisiana L egislature formally created the Louisiana Virtual School. 50 The Louisiana Virtual School primary funding model was centralized by the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. 51 In the Fall of 2010, per course. 52 53 44 http://www.kyvs.org/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp 45 Office of Education Accounta http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/RR353.pdf 46 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/kentucky 47 http://www.freedomkentucky.org/index.php?title=Kentu cky_Virtual_Schools 48 Ibid. 49 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?lvsinfo 50 http://www.heritage.org/applications/schoolchoice/la 51 2011 Louisiana Virtual School http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/documents/LVS%20Memo_Programmatic%20Changes_2010 2011.pdf 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

PAGE 31

31 Maine. In 2009, 54 the Maine Legislature created the Main Online Learning Program with SP0531. 55 Funding for the Maine Online Learning Program was primarily th r ough the Maine Department of Education. 56 Ad ditionally, in 2011, the Maine L egislature developed legislation that allowed for the creation of publicly funded virtual cha rter schools for elementary and secondary students. 57 Michigan. In 2000, 58 the state of Michigan passed legislation that created the Michigan Virtual School. 59 In 2006, Michigan was the first state to require students to complete an online course as a gradu ation requirement. 60 The Michigan Virtual School utilized a centralized model that was funded with annual legislative appropriations, and course fees. 61 h an enrollment of one to nine students. 62 The legislative council for Michigan also established the Cyber School Act which allowed for 54 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/maine 55 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 A: EDUCATION, §19152 56 http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlinepublicschools/a/MainePublic.htm 57 Ma. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. MRSA §12004 G, sub §10 D. 58 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PA_123_and_124_159920_7.pdf 59 http ://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Online10.06_final_175750_7.pdf 60 2006 Mich. Pub. Acts no. 123. 61 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/m ichigan 62 http://www.mivhs.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=T7F72BuzKFU%3d&tabid=185

PAGE 32

32 private/for profit and non profit virtual school alternatives to Michigan State Virtual l. 63 Mississippi In 2006, 64 the Mississippi legislature created the Mississippi Virtual Public School. 65 The Mississippi Virtual Public School was funded on an annual basis with a centralized model th r ough state appropriations and additional state provide d through grant funding. 66 Students had access to free online classes unless all of the money allotted for virtu istricts/schools and parents can 67 In May 2010, the Missi ssippi Department of Education selected Connections Academy, a third party, to operate and manage the MVPS. 68 There was no evidence of virtual charter schools in Mississippi. Missouri In 2007, 69 the Missouri legislature formally created the Missouri Vir tual Instruction Program. 70 In the 2009 2010 academic year, the state legislature allocated 4.8 million dollars for the funding of MoVIP. 71 Missouri legislation did allow for private/for profit and non profit virtual school alternatives to the Missouri Vir tual 63 Mich. Admin. Code § 380.553a. 64 Mississip http://www.connectionsacademy.com/mississippi school/home.aspx 65 Miss. Code Ann. § 37 161 3. 66 161 http://board.mde.k12.ms.us/June_2 009/Tab%20M%20 %20IPS%20 %20VPS%20 %20Contract%20with%20Fulltime%20Online%20Teachers%20backup%20b.pdf 67 http:/ /www.connectionsacademy.com/mississippi school/faqs.aspx 68 http://www.connectionsacademy.com/news/Mississippi_Virtual_School_Connections_Academy.aspx 69 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 161.670. 70 Ibid. 71 http://sites.google .com/site/liberatelearn/home/missouri

PAGE 33

33 ized funding model. The legislature permitted this practice kindergarten through twelfth grade, with the courses available in accor dance with district 72 Thus, a local school district had the authority to create a virtual school that was an alternative option to the Missouri Virtual Instruction Prog ram. Montana. In 2009, 73 the Montana legislature created the Montana Virtual Academy. 74 In 2010, it was renamed the Montana Digital Academy. 75 There were no costs for students to take courses 76 and $2 million dollars was annually allocated by the legislat ure for the continued development of the Montana Digital Academy. 77 In 2011, the Provide for Public Chart er Schools Act was voted down by the Senate Education Committee. 78 If passed, it would have permitted virtual charter schools to be created. Howeve r, since the act was not passed, there were still no alternatives to the Montana Digital Academy. North Carolina In 2002, 79 the state of North Carolina passed legislation that established the North Carolina Virtual Public School. 80 It was the second lar gest state 72 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 162.1250. 73 http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_aa4992c0 b194 11df 8273 001cc4c002e0.html 74 Mont. Code Ann. §20 7 1201. 75 http://www.montanadigitala cademy.org/mtda program 76 http://montanadigitalacademy.org/faq 77 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/montana 78 Ibid. 79 http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/history/

PAGE 34

34 virtual school in the United States, and trailed only the Florida Virtual School in total enrollment. 81 The primary funding source for the North Carolina Virtual Public School was the North Carolina State Board of Education. 82 There were no tuit ion costs for students to enroll in the North Carolina Virtual Public School. 83 According to the North lic School (NCVPS) program shall report to the State Board of Education and shall maintain an a 84 The State Board of Education was also in charge of the overall funding formula for the North Carolina Virtual School which was installed in 2010. 85 Prior to 2010, the North Carolina Virtual P ublic School received an annual appropriation of $11.2 million each year. 86 At the beginning of the 2010 201 1 academic year, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to eliminate a 100 school limit of virtual charter schools in order to offer more virtual school options for students. 87 There were also online alternatives that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options for students. 80 North Carolina Vi http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/history/ 81 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/north carolina 82 N.C. Gen. Stat. §105 134.6(d). 83 http://ww w.ncvps.org/index.php/parents/homeprivate school/ 84 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 2006 66. 85 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/north ca rolina 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.

PAGE 35

35 Wyoming In 2008, 88 the Wyoming legislature passed legislation that created the Wyoming Switchboard Network. 89 The Wyoming Department of Education was responsible for the funding, maintenance, and development of the Wyoming Switchboard Network. 90 Network is a collection of distance education provi ders that deliver coursework to K 12 information about the various DE (distance education) program providers 91 Table 3 1 illustrated every state that utilized a Centralized Virtual School Model (Table 3 1) Collectively, centralized virtual schools were funded and authorized by state 92 The C entralized V irtual S chool M odels were for public elementary and secon dary students within a given state regardless of school districts or local authorities. 93 88 Rules and Regulations for the School Foundation http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7210.pdf 89 Wyoming http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7334.pdf 90 Ibid. 91 http://www.wyomingswitchboard.net/Home.aspx 92 The Funding of Virtual Schools & Developmental Technology in Education. pa, Florida, May 4 6, 2011). 93 Ibid.

PAGE 36

36 Publicly Funded Virtual School Model The publicly funded virtual school options were funded and authorized by the state e education agency. 94 As in the Centralized Virtual School Model, whether full time or supplemental, the state virtual schools were specifically funded through state appropriations. In order for a state to be judged within this system, elementary and seco ndary students must have been afforded the option of choosing from multiple publicly funded virtual schools. 95 Collectively, the Publicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel was similar to the Centralized Virtual School Model. However, in order for a state to fit within the P ublicly F unded Virtual School M odel, students must be given an option of choosing from multiple publicly funded virtual schools. 96 Publicly Funded Virtual School Model States Alaska In 2008, 97 profit educational service agency that provides educational services to every school district in 98 The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development used $1.2 million of the annual funds allocated for Enhancing Education through Technolo gy to 94 The Funding of Virtual Schools & Developmental Technology in Education. 6, 2011). 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 A orrespondence Study http://www.eed.state.ak.us/regs/filed/4AAC_33.405_4AAC_33.490.pdf 98 Ala http://www.eed.state.ak.us/doe_news/infoexch/ix101105.html

PAGE 37

37 finance the Alaska Virtual Network. 99 Alaska statue also permitted accredited private/for profit and non profit alternatives to exist within the Alaska Virtual Network. Arkansas Since 2000, the Arkansas Virtual High School (AVHS) has served as the state virtual school for Arkansas. 100 Additionally, the Arkansas Virtual Academy funded by the state, leaving no tuition or s upplemental costs to students was a full time, statewide charter school. 101 The Arkansas Department of Education funded virtual schoo ls and serves to oversee governance and accountability pertaining to virtual education throughout the state. From 2007 2009, funding for AVHS was allocated through an annual Department of Education grant of $740,000 funding for the 2009 2010 academic decre ased to $590,000, which subsequently resulted in decreased enrollment. 102 The Arkansas Virtual Academy served grades K 8 throughout the state but was limited by legislation to serve 500 students. The Virtual Academy was funded through the same student FTE formula as a physical school $5,905 per student but did not receive fiscal remuneration from local property taxes. 103 As a charter school, the Arkansas Virtual Academy must adhere to state mandated regulations for other charter schools throughout Arkansas: 99 Alaska Dept. of Educ. & Early Developm http://www.eed.state.ak.us/doe_news/infoexch/ix101105.html 100 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 101 htt p://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Acts/Act1420.pdf 102 Led Virtual Learning http://lbfc.legis.state.p a.us/reports/2011/52.PDF 103 http://adesharepoint2.arkansas.gov/memos/L ists/Approved%20Memos/DispForm2.aspx?ID=19

PAGE 38

38 amount apportioned by the district from state and local revenue per average daily 104 Georgia In 2005, 105 the Georgia L egislature passed legislation that created the official virtu al school of Georgia Georgia Virtual School. 106 In addition to the Georgia Virtual School, another publically funded virtual school that received funding through the Georgia General Assembly 107 was the iAchieve Virtual Academy. 108 In 2006, SB 610 was passed to allow local school boards to act as local virtual charter schools. 109 In essence SB 610 allowed for private/for profit and non profit schools to exist as alternatives to the Georgia Virtual School as well. In order to provide equity and adequacy of the ch arter schools, HB 881 established the Georgia Charter School Commission to provide equal funding guidelines for newly created charter schools. 110 Kansas In 2008, 111 the Kansas Virtual School Act created policies to structure the virtual schools funded thro ugh the Kansas State Department of Education. 112 104 http://arkans ased.org/about/pdf/current/ade_126_limited_charter_schools_101209_current.pdf 105 http://www.gavirtualschool.org/Portals/2/PDFs /History%20of%20GAVS.pdf 106 http://www.gavirtualschool.org/ 107 8 1 http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160 8 1 .01.pdf 108 http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/dom ain/2110 109 http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/pdf/sb610.pdf 110 http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/pdf/hb881.pdf 111 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0BJANZlOd3k%3d&tabid=455&mid=6785 112 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vQyfSb4K6ig%3d&tabid=455

PAGE 39

39 Each school year that a school district has a virtual school, the district is entitled to Virtual School State Aid. Virtual School St ate Aid is calculated by multiplying the number of full time equivalent pupils enrolled in a virtual school times 105.0 percent of the unweighted Base State Aid per Pupil. 113 The Kansas State Department of Education also required a log that confirmed element ary and secondary student enrollment/attendance be kept in order to better document expenditures. 114 Minnesota In 2003, 115 the Minnesota Department of Education 116 was given the authority by the Omnibus K 12 Education Act of 2003 117 to fund, develop, and approve online courses within the state. The state of Minnesota did not have a state virtual school, but it did have a state led initiative called the Minnesota Learning Commons. 118 There were sixteen K 12 Certified Online Learning (OLL) Providers in the state of Minnesota. 119 Funding allocations for the Minnesota Learning Commons were determined annually by the Minnesota Department of Education. 120 Minnesota also allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school alternatives to the Minnesota Learning Com mons. 113 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gEKatfp UPM%3D&tabid=3429&mid=7866&forcedownload=true 114 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rm3Hs4L94IE%3D&tabid=1646&mid=10220 115 Minn. Stat., §124D.09. 116 Minn. Stat., §124D.095. 117 http://icee.isu.edu/Publications All/PS&ERPublications/PBVirtualLearning.pdf 118 http://mnlearningcommons.org/ 119 http://education. state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Choice/documents/Publication/031616.pdf 120 Minn. Stat., §124D.095.

PAGE 40

40 New Hampshire In 2007, the state of New Hampshire created The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. 121 According to the organization, The Virtual line high school that is av ailable, free of charge, to all high school stu dents who live in New Hampshire. The Academy has its own employees, teaching staff, Board of Trustees, 122 There was also an online community college program that offered dual enroll ment courses for students that worked in conjunction with The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. 123 Multiple centralized funding was allocated for both of these programs th r ough the New Hampshire State Board. 124 Additionally, there was also alternative s to the state virtual school models that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. Ohio While Ohio enrolls students through twenty seven eCommunity schools, the legislature did not creat e a state wide virtual school. 125 A community school was similar to a charter school, but an eCommunity school was computer based, and allow ed students to work from home. 126 Since 1997, the state of Ohio has supported 121 http://www.vlacs.org/index.php/about us 122 Ibid. 123 http://www.ccsnh.edu/news/estart.html 124 N.H. Code Admin R. Ann. Section §1 94 B:11. 125 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=59539 126 US Ch http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/sp/view/sp/12

PAGE 41

41 the inception and expansion of community schools as an alternative to the traditional model of public elementary and secondary education school programs. 127 Further, an eCommunity school in Ohio wa s funded by the state through per pupil foundation payments, additional funds from grants (government or private), state start up grants for developers with preliminary agreements, and the Public Charter Schools Grant Program through the United States Department of Education. In Ohio, eCommunity schools were funded by the same formula per pupil as traditi onal programs within a district. For fiscal year 2010, funding allocation for eCommunity schools was set at $5,718. 128 South Carolina In 2007, 129 the South Carolina State Department of Education began operating the South Carolina Virtual School Program. 130 T he South Carolina General Assembly provided funding for the South Carolina Virtual School with a highly centralized model. 131 There were also multiple publicly funded options that utilized funding from the centralized model. The South Carolina Public Chart er School District was in charge of authorizing alternative schools for elementary and secondary school 127 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=879& ContentID=3364&Content=94438 128 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=878& Content=100615 129 South Carolina Leg. http://scstatehouse.net/code/t59c016.htm 130 http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/ 131 South Carolina Leg. http ://scstatehouse.net/code/t59c016.htm

PAGE 42

42 132 There were also alternatives to the state virtual schools that allowed for private/for pro fit and non profit virtual school options. South Dakota In 2006, 133 the South Dakota Department of Education 134 started funding the South Dakota Virtual School. 135 Within the South Dakota Virtual School itself, there were multiple publicly funded virtual scho ol options that utilized state funding. South Dakota also offered elementary and secondary students non profit virtual school alternatives to the publicly funded virtual schools. Table 3 2 illustrated every state that utilized a Publicly Funded Virtual S chool Model. (Table 3 2) Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model In the P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool Model virtual schools could either agency, or a private organization(s). As in the first two classifications, whether full time or supplemental, the state virtual school could be funded through state appropriation. However, this classification recognized that elementary and secondary students mus t be afforded the option of choosing from multiple publicly funded virtual schools or privately funded virtual schools. 132 http://sccharter.org/documents/2011Ch arterApplication_1FINAL9 16 10%5B1%5D.pdf 133 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/south dakota 134 http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/virtual schooling in the news 271/ 135 http://www.sdvs.k12.sd.us/

PAGE 43

43 Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model States Arizona In 2009, 136 the state of Arizona passed legislation that created the Tec hnology Assisted Project Based Instruction Program. 137 While the organization itself educational program. In 2009, SB 1196 was passed changing the name of the Technology A ssisted Project Based Instruction Program to the Arizona Online Instruction. 138 Senate Bill 1196 also eliminated the restriction on the number of charter schools and districts that could function under Arizona Online Instruction guidelines. 139 The primary fu nding source for the Arizona Online Instructional programs was provided by the Arizona State Board of Education. 140 There were alternatives to the state virtual school models that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options. Califor nia The state virtual school of California, University of California College Prep, was established in 1999. 141 Many California virtual schools were supplemental and receive d funding based upon average daily attendance The California Legislature, through Amended Bill 885, recognized the importance of online learning and allowed 136 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/ar izona 137 Ibid. 138 http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/49leg/1R/Senate/SummaryED.pdf 139 Arizona State Legislatu http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/49leg/1R/Senate/SummaryED.pdf 140 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/arizona 141 http://www.edpath.com/images/VHSRepor t.pdf

PAGE 44

44 school districts to collect ADA for up to two online courses, which set up the funding of virtual education programs in California. 142 In essence, charter school law and the independ ent study provisions govern ed online charter schools in the state of California. California State Legislature, passed in 2001, authorize d non classroom based instruction, as defined for that purpose, only if a determination for 143 California has a variety of private virtual school options available to public elementary and secondary students e.g. Halstrom High School Online, 144 Laurel Spring s School, 145 and Sycamore Academy. 146 Colorado In 1998, 147 the Colorado state legislature created a statewide virtual school entitled Colorado Online Learning. 148 The state of Colorado also had eighteen public virtual multi district programs and seven public vi rtual single district programs in addition to allowing for private/for profit and non profit alternatives to the state virtual school. 149 for multi district online programs ranged from a low of $72,440 to a high of $30,087,685. 142 http://www.edpath.com/images/VHSReport .pdf 143 State of California Dept. http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/06 201.pdf 144 http://www.halstromhs.org/ 145 http://www.laurelsprings.com/aboutus/ 146 http://www.sycamoretree.com/about_us.html 147 http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lea d/academic/advanced/report_pg23.html 148 http://www.col.k12.co.us/aboutus/history.html 149 http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/2010_AnnualReport_OnlinePrograms.pdf

PAGE 45

45 150 The public virtual schools were funded with the use of a centralized model through the Colorado Department of Education. 151 Connecticut In 2007, the Connecticut legislature appropriated $850,000 to launch the Connecticut Virtual Learning Center. 152 Due to state budgetary restraints, no state funds were appropriated in 2008. As a consequence, Connecticut Virtual Learning Center then charge d school districts $295 per semester course and $320 per semester for private school and home schooled students. 153 In 2010, Connecticut passed Public A ct 10 111, which served as the first piece of legislation concerning online learning in Connecticut. 154 Regarding alternatives to the Connecticut Virtual Learning Center, the Connecticut Adult Virtual High School, a statewide online program, and a variety o f private school options supplement the Connecticut Virtual Learning Center. Hawaii In 2008, 155 the Hawaii state legislature developed policy that created the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network. 156 150 http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/2010_AnnualReport_OnlinePrograms.pd f 151 http://www.col.k12.co.us/aboutus/history.html 152 http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2011/52.PDF 153 154 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/connecticut 155 http://hawaiivln.k12.h i.us/about us 156 http://hvln.k12.hi.us/

PAGE 46

46 by the Hawaii Online Task Force to expand and systematize online courses and to offer 157 Unique to Hawaii, was the fact the state had a single statewide brick and mortar school district with several virtual schools t hat utilize d 158 There were a total of fourteen different schools that were members of the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network during the 2010 201 1 academic year. 159 There was also evidence of for pr ivate/for profit and non profit alternatives to the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network. Indiana In 2005, 160 the Indiana State Department of Education 161 allocated funding for elementary and secondary students to have virtual school options. Indiana had distric t level virtual schools, statewide third party virtual supplemental programs, and two statewide online charter schools. The two major virtual charter schools in Indiana were the Hoosier Academy Virtual Pilot School and the Indiana Connection Academy Virtu al Pilot School. The state legislature gave the Indiana State Department of Education the authority to fund and operate these schools. 162 In addition, there were also alternatives that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options fo r students. 157 http://hawaiivln.k12.hi.us/about us 158 http://hvln.k12.hi.us/ 159 Hawaii Virtual Learning Network, http://hawaiivln.k12.hi.us/member schools 160 http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=21703 161 Ind. Code §20 24 7 12. 162 Ind. Code § 20 24 7.

PAGE 47

47 Iowa Iowa first started offering online courses to students through the Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy 163 in 2001. 164 According to the Academy: An initial technology grant of $1.6 million was awarded to the Belin Blank Center in 2001 b y the Iowa Department of Education to aid in increasing student participation in AP courses and exams in Iowa high schools. The U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) awarded the Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy at The University of Iowa's Belin Bl ank Center $3.49 million in grant extensions to continue and expand this program through 2006. An additional $1.4 million was awarded to the Belin Blank Center by the U.S. DOE to help maintain IOAPA support for rural Iowa schools through 2010. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D Iowa) was the leader in securing funds for this program for Iowa's students. 165 In 2004, 166 the Iowa legislature authorized the expansion of online education with the development of an online program entitled Iowa Learning Online. 167 Therefore, i n addition to offering Advance Placement courses online, the Iowa Department of Education allowed for all students to have online course options. According to Iowa Learning Online: Students enroll in classes through the guidance counselor or administrator at their local school. Schools enrolling students in ILO classes are asked to designate a student coach who provides on site support and encouragement to each student or group of students. Actively involved student coaches are essential to a student's s uccessful completion of ILO courses. Student grades and credits are awarded by the student's home school based on the recommendation of the ILO instructor. 168 163 Talent Developme http://www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/programs/students/ioapa/ 164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 http://www.iowalearningonline.org/about.cfm 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid.

PAGE 48

48 Iowa did not use a centralized virtual school model and was primarily funded th r ough the Iowa D epartment of Education. 169 There were also online alternatives that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. Maryland In 2002, 170 the Maryland L egislature passed legislation that created t he Maryland Virtual School. 171 It was primarily funded through the Maryland State Department of Education, 172 and utilized a centralized model with multiple public options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit alternatives to the state virtual sc hool high school or school system. Students may take a course through MVS only with the 173 Massachusetts In 2003, 174 the Massachusetts State Department of Education online courses, determi ne which students can take online courses, and evaluate the available online course offerings. The following recommended criteria can be used by 169 Iowa Code 257.11. 170 Maryland http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/mary land 171 http://mdk12online.org/ 172 based Course for K 12 Students to M eet State http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/Web based_Courses.pdf 173 http://mdk12online.org/ 174 http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/news03/dis tance_learning.pdf

PAGE 49

49 175 Massachusetts utilized a centralized model with multiple public option s that allowed for private/for profit and non profit alternatives to the state virtual school and multiple public options. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE) 176 was the state virtual school and it was primarily funded thro ugh NCLB Title II D Competitive Grants. 177 Nebraska In 2006, 178 the Nebraska legislature created policies that outlined a framework for virtual education. Nebraska did not utilize a centralized funding model and did not have a state virtual school. Nebrask a was however, at the time of this study, in the process of developing a centralized state virtual school. According to Governor Dave Heineman: The Virtual School will provide Nebraska students a rigorous online high school curriculum with an emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, commonly referred to as STEM courses, and Advanced Placement courses in both rural and urban areas. Additionally, the Virtual School establishes a single, centralized website informing students, parents, teachers and schools of virtual learning opportunities in Nebraska. 179 There was a large variety of district level virtual school programs that were primarily funded through a Nebraska State Appropriation. 180 There were also online 175 http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/news03/distance_learning.pdf 176 http://massone.mass.edu/pdf/ about Default.html.pdf 177 School Finance Massachusetts Department of http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/ 178 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79 1337. 179 http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/08/12_virtual_school.html 180 Neb. Rev. Stat. §79 1337.

PAGE 50

50 alternatives that allowed for priv ate/for profit and non profit virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. Nevada In 2007, 181 the Nevada State Board of Education started funding a statewide program entitled the Nevada Virtual Academy. 182 While the Nevada Virtual Academy w as not considered a primary state virtual school, Nevada contained evidence of online district level programs and virtual charter schools. Thus, there were alternatives to the statewide virtual schools and the state of Nevada allowed for private/for profi t and non profit virtual school options. New Jersey In 2002, 183 the New Jersey Virtual School 184 began offering online courses for New Jersey elementary and secondary students. However, the New Jersey Virtual School was not considered the state virtual scho ol of the state of New Jersey. In 2010, 185 the state of New Jersey approved two virtual charter schools to offer additional online virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. Funding for the public virtual school options consisted of fund s primarily through the New Jersey Department of Education. New Jersey also contained evidence of virtual school options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options. 181 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Assembly/ED/AED254L.pdf 182 http://www.k12.com/neva 183 Ne http://www.njvs.org/WhyChooseNJVSFAQs.aspx 184 Ibid. 185 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/new jersey

PAGE 51

51 New Mexico In 2001, 186 the state of New Mexico started offe ring online courses for students. The New Mexico state virtual school, IDEAL NM (Innovative Digital Education and Learning New Mexico, 187 was funded using a centralized model through the New Mexico State Legislature. 188 Unique to New Mexico, was the concept of how NM provides eLearning services to New Mexico PK 12 schools, higher education institut ions, and government agencies. We reduce geographic and capacity barriers to educational opportunity while increasing the digital literacy skills students n 189 Therefore, IDEAL NM focused on a broad age range of students in New Mexico as opposed to just elementary and secondary students. New Mexico also had online alternatives to the IDEAL NM program that allowed for pr ivate/for profit and non profit virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. North Dakota In 2000, 190 the state virtual school, the North Dakota Center for Distance Education, 191 was created. The North Dakota Center for Distance Education utilized a centralized model that was primarily funded by State Appropriation and 186 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/onli ne_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 187 http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get content/content/about_ideal nm 188 New Mex http://ideal nm.org/index.php/home/get document/document/NMCA%20Plan.pdf 189 IDEAL http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get content/content/about_ideal nm 190 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 191 https://www.ndcde .org/Home.aspx

PAGE 52

52 Course Fees. 192 However, each school district had the authority over who paid for the actual cost of the courses the district or student. The legislature stated that homescho oled students were required to pay tuition to attend the North Dakota Center for Distance Education. 193 In addition to the North Dakota Center for Distance Education, there were multiple options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit alternative s to the state virtual school available for elementary and secondary students. Oklahoma In 2000, 194 Oklahoma started offering online courses to elementary and secondary students. While Oklahoma did not have a state virtual school, it consisted of two la rge statewide online programs: Oklahoma Virtual Academy 195 and the Oklahoma Virtual High School. 196 Both of these online programs were regulated and primarily funded through the State Board of Education. 197 In addition to the two primary public virtual school options, there were also virtual schools that offered private/for profit and non profit alternatives for elementary and secondary students. Oregon In 2005, 198 the Oregon State Legislature created the Oregon Virtual School District. 199 Operated within the O regon Department of Education, the Oregon 192 N.D. Cent. Code §15 19. 193 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/north dakota 194 The University of Oklahoma Cent http://ouhigh.ou.edu/overview.cfm 195 http://www.k12.com/okva/ 196 http://www.oklahomavirtualhighschool.com/about.html 197 http://oklahomavirtualhighschool.com/faq.html#howitworks 198 Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; Educational http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/329.html 199 Ibid.

PAGE 53

53 Virtual School District was primarily centrally funded through the Oregon Virtual School District Fund. 200 In addition to the state virtual school, Oregon had many alternative statewide programs elementary and secon dary students such as the Oregon Virtual Academy Charter School 201 and an abundant of district level programs. Oregon also had a numerous number virtual school options that offered private/for profit and non profit alternatives for elementary and secondary students. Pennsylvania In 2000, 202 the state of Pennsylvania started offering online courses for elementary and secondary students. Pennsylvania did not have a state virtual school but had twelve cyber charter schools. 203 Primary funding for online educati on was provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. 204 Per pupil 205 Pennsylvania also had virtual school options for elementary and secondary students that offered private/for profit and non profit alternatives to the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter Schools. Rhode Island I n 2010, the Rhode Island state Department of Education developed policy that was designed to redistribute funds into virtual education for 200 Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; Educational http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/329.html 201 http://www.k12.com/orva/ 202 The Link, The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School 3, no. 1 (2007): 1. 203 Commonwealth of Pennsylvani http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/http;//www.por tal.state.pa.us;80/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_ 122943_910520_0_0_18/2010_2011_Cyber_List.pdf 204 http://www.pavcsk12.org/Our_Comm unity/ 205 Ibid.

PAGE 54

54 elementary and secon dary students. 206 Rhode Island does not have a state virtual virtual school option and offered over eighty online course options for elementary and secondary students. 207 Rhode Island also contained evidence of virtual school options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options. Tennessee In 2006, 208 e4TN 209 was created as the state virtual school of Tennessee. Annually funded through a re new able fede ral grant, 210 e4TN offered online courses for elementary and secondary students. Tennessee also had several statewide online programs and local district level virtual school options for students. In addition, Tennessee had virtual school options for elemen tary and secondary students that offered private/for profit and non profit alternatives to the states multiple public options. Texas In 2007, 211 the Texas Legislature created policy for the Texas Education Agency to establish the Texas Virtual School Netwo rk and Electronic Course Program. 212 The Texas Education Agency (TEA) offers state supported online learning opportunities to students across the state through the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN) using a network approach that works in partnership with districts. TEA administers the TxVSN under the leadership of the commissioner of education, sets standards for and 206 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/rhode island 207 http://www.nric ri.org/virtual learning academy 208 https://www.e4tn.org/home/about/ 209 Ibid. 210 Ibid. 211 http://www.txvsn.org/ 212 http://www.tea. state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4840&menu_id=2147483665

PAGE 55

55 approves TxVSN courses and professional development for online teachers, and has fiscal responsibility for the network. Education Service Center (ESC) Region 10 conducts the review of TxVSN courses and serves as Central Operations for the network, along with the Harris County Department of Education. 213 Funding for online elementary and secondary students was primarily allocated by the Texas State Legislature. 214 There were additional online alternatives that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options in Texas as well. Utah In 1994, 215 the state of Utah started offering online courses for elementary and secondary st ude nts. Utah had a state virtual school that utilized a centralized model the Utah Electronic High School. 216 In addition to the state virtual school, Utah had several statewide and district level online programs, that were primarily funded by Utah State O ffice of Education Funds. 217 Utah also had online alternatives that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options for elementary and secondary students. Vermont In 2009, the Vermont State Board of Education established policy and a funding mechanism to provide elementary and secondary students access to a twenty first century learning environment. 218 The state virtual school of Vermont was called the 213 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4840&menu_id=2147483665 214 http://www.txvsn.org/TxVSNFAQ.aspx 215 Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 216 http://www.schools.utah.gov/ehs/ 217 http://utaheducationfacts.com/index.php?option=co m_content&view=article&id=124:onlinevirtual schools public&catid=56:school options&Itemid=65 218 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/vermont

PAGE 56

56 Vermont Virtual Learning Cooperative. 219 Additionally, the e Vermont Community Broadb and Project was created to bring increased educational access to students in rural communities with the use of broadband internet. 220 Vermont also contained evidence of virtual school options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school options. Virginia In 2005, 221 the Virginia legislature created an official state virtual school Virtual Virginia. 222 Funded pr imarily th r ough annual Virginia state a ppropriations, 223 Virtual Virginia utilized a centralized model. In addition to the statewid e virtual school, Virginia had several statewide and district level online programs, that were accredited by the Virginia Department of Education and publicly funded. 224 Furthermore, Virginia had online options that allowed for private/for profit and non pr ofit virtual school opportunities for elementary and secondary students as well. Washington In 2009, 225 the Washington state legislature created the Digital Learning Department in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 226 as the state virtua l school of Washington. Funded predominantly th r ough the Washington 219 http://vtvlc.org/ 220 http://site s.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/vermont 221 Virginia CQ Commerce Quarterly, 10, no. 1 (2005): 1. 222 http://www.virtualvirginia.org/ 223 Virtual Virginia, http://www.virtualvirginia.org/faqs/index.html 224 h ttp://www.virtualvirginia.org/faqs/index.html 225 http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/about/ 226 Ibid.

PAGE 57

57 State Board of Education, 227 the Digital Learning Department in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction utilized a centralized model. In addition to the state virtual school Washington had several statewide and district level online programs. Washington had online options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school opportunities for elementary and secondary students. West Virginia In 2000, 228 the West Virginia legislature passed legislation that created the West Virginia Virtual School. 229 The state virtual school of West Virginia was primarily funded through the West Virginia Department of Education. 230 Even though the state of West Virginia did not have policy regarding online charter schools, there were still online options that allowed for private/for profit and non profit virtual school opportunities for elementary and secondary students. Wisconsin In 2008, 231 the state of Wisconsin started structurin g online education for elementary and secondary students. Primarily funded through the Department of Public Instruction and Cooperative Educational Service Agency, 232 Wisconsin had a state virtual school the Wisconsin Virtual School. 233 There were several di strict level 227 Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.250.RCW. 228 Distance Learning Resou rce Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 229 irginia http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2450.html 230 Ibid. 231 http://www.wisconsinv irtualschool.org/ 232 http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2007/data/acts/07act222.pdf 233 http://www.wisconsinvirtualschool.org/ http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/imt/onlinevir.html

PAGE 58

58 and statewide programs in addition to the state virtual school. Furthermore, there were several online charter schools available to elementary and secondary students as wel l. Wisconsin also allowed for p rivate/ f or p rofit and n on p rofit virtu al school options for elementary and secondary students. In general, states that were classified in the P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel consisted of either a state virtual school or consortium, and had several private school options that w ere available to elementary and secondary students. Of the three primary virtual school funding models, this group was the most commonly used by state legislatures and school policymakers. Table 3 3 illustrated every state that utilized a Privately/Publi cly Funded Virtual School Model. (Table 3 3) Alternative Virtual School Models Delaware and New York Delaware and New York were classified as states that had alternati ve virtual school models that did not fit into one of the three previous classificatio ns. Delaware did not have a state virtual school, a statewide online progra m, or an online charter school. As a result, no legislation covered virtual education in the state. In 2008, similar to Connecticut, Delaware established online public elementary and secondary education programs designed primarily for credit recovery, but budget issues stifled the implementation and growth of virtual schools throughout the state. 234 Specifically, the Delaware Virtual School w as launched as a pilot program that offer ed six online courses through twent y seven high schools and served nearly 300 234 http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Glass_Virtual.pdf

PAGE 59

59 students. 235 However, d ue to an $800 million budget deficit in Delaware, the pilot program did not receive funding for the 2009 20 10 academic year 236 As a result, s elect districts use d vendor courses on a limited basis, and certain high schools participate d in Online High School which served to provide dual enrollment courses for high school students. 237 T here was no state statute in New York regarding vi rtual schools. However a public virtual school existed, and so did a private virtual school entitled the Francis School. 238 In 2010, the state of New York issued several requests for proposals through legislation that would provide an emphasis on online c oursework for public elementary and secondary students throughout the state e.g. student support, professional development, online learning assessment, and the future of online education. 239 As noted previously, Delaware and New York were states that had al ternative virtual school models and did not fit into any of the three primary virtual school funding models. Summary Ch apter 3 contained an examination of case law, policy, and literature applicable to the research questions. The literature review was div ided into four parts that addressed the following concepts: a background of online education, national trends of online education, principles of education finance, and an in depth overview of state level 235 Southe http://publications.sreb.org/2009/SVSsurveyDE09B.pdf 236 Ibid. 237 20 Council R http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/ddoe/p20council/docs/Dual%20Enrollment%20final%20report.pdf 238 Francis School, http://www.francisschool.com/ 239 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2011Meetings/January2011/111p12d2.pdf

PAGE 60

60 policy regarding virtual schooling. Absent a sound theoretical base, Chapter 3 contained state statute and policy as well. Each section further addressed the research questions regarding the funding for virtual schooling throughout the United States

PAGE 61

61 T able 3 1 Centralized Virtual School Model Stat e Name of State Virtual School Year Primary Funding Source Alternatives to State Virtual School Alabama ACCESS 2004 Alabama State Appropriation None Florida Florida Virtual School 1997 Florida Legislature Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Ida ho Idaho Digital Learning Academy 2002 Idaho State Legislature None Illinois Illinois Virtual School 2009 Illinois State Appropriation None Kentucky Kentucky Virtual Schools 2000 Annual State Allocation None Louisiana Louisiana Virtual School 2000 Loui siana Board of Elementary and Secondary Educ. None Maine Maine Online Learning Program 2009 Maine Dept. of Educ. None Michigan Michigan Virtual School 2000 Annual Legislative Appropriations Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Miss. Mississippi Virtual Public School 2006 Mississippi State Appropriation None Missouri Missouri Virtual Instruction Program 2007 Missouri State Legislature Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Montana Montana Virtual Academy 2009 Montana State Legislature Non e North Carolina North Carolina Virtual Public School 2002 North Carolina State Board of Educ. None Wyoming Wyoming Switchboard Network 2008 Wyoming Dept. of Educ. None

PAGE 62

62 T able 3 2 Publicly Funded Virtual School Model State Centralized Model Name of State Virtual School Year Primary Funding Source Alternatives to State Virtual School Alaska No No State Virtual School 2008 Alaska Dept. of Educ. and Early Development Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Arkansas Yes Arkansas Virtual High Schoo l 2000 Annual Dept. of Education Grant Allows for Non Profit Georgia Yes Georgia Virtual School 2005 Georgia General Assembly Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Kansas No No State Virtual School 2008 Kansas State Dept. of Educ. Allows for Priva te/For Profit and Non Profit Minnesota No No State Virtual School 2003 Minnesota Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit New Hampshire No No State Virtual School 2007 New Hampshire State Board Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Pro fit Ohio No No State Virtual School 2003 Ohio Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit South Carolina Yes South Carolina Virtual School Program 2007 South Carolina General Assembly Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit South Da kota Yes South Dakota Virtual School 2006 South Dakota Dept. of Educ. Allows for Non Profit

PAGE 63

63 T able 3 3 Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model State Centralized Model Name of State Virtual School Year Primary Funding Source Alternatives to State Virtual School Arizona No No State Virtual School 2009 Arizona State Board of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit California Yes University of California College Prep 1999 State Academic Preparation Program Allows for Private/For Profit a nd Non Profit Colorado Yes Colorado Online Learning 1998 Colorado Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Conn. Yes The Connecticut Virtual Learning Center 2008 Connecticut General Assembly Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Hawaii Yes Hawaii Virtual Learning Network 1996 Hawaii Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Indiana No No State Virtual School 2005 Indiana State Depart. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Iowa No Iowa Online A P Academy & Iowa Learning Online 2001 2004 Iowa Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Maryland Yes Maryland Virtual School 2002 Maryland State Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Mass. Yes Massachusetts Onlin e Network for Education (MassONE) 2003 NCLB Title II D Competitive Grants Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Nebraska No No State Virtual School 2006 Nebraska State Appropriation Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Nevada No No State Virtual School 2007 Nevada State Board of Education Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit New Jersey No No State Virtual School 2002 New Jersey Department of Education Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit New Mexico Yes IDEAL NM (Innovati ve Digital Education and Learning New Mexico) 2001 New Mexico State Legislature Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit North Dakota Yes North Dakota Center for Distance Education 2000 State Appropriation and Course Fees Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit North Carolina Yes North Carolina Virtual Public School 2002 State Board of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Oklahoma No No State Virtual School 2000 State Board of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Ore gon Yes Oregon Virtual School District 2005 Oregon Virtual School District Fund Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit

PAGE 64

64 T able 3 3 Continued State Centralized Model Name of State Virtual School Year Primary Funding Source Alternatives to State Virt ual School Penn. No No State Virtual School 2000 Pennsylvania Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Rhode Island No No State Virtual School 2010 Rhode Island State Department of Education Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Tennessee Yes e4TN 2006 Annually renewable federal grant Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Texas No Texas Virtual School Network and Electronic Course Program 2007 Legislature of the State of Texas Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Utah Yes Utah Electronic High School 1994 Utah State Office of Educ. Funds Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Vermont Yes Vermont Virtual Learning Cooperative 2009 Vermont State Board of Education Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Virginia Yes Virtual Virginia 2005 Virginia State Appropriations Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Wash. Yes Digital Learning Department in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 2009 Washington State Board of Educ. Allows for P rivate/For Profit and Non Profit West Virginia Yes West Virginia Virtual School 2000 West Virginia Dept. of Educ. Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit Wisconsin Yes Wisconsin Virtual School 2008 Department of Public Instruction & Cooperative Educ Service Agency Allows for Private/For Profit and Non Profit

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS Chapter 4 contained a breakdown and analysis of data used to directly answer the forth y mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s)? Within the C entralized V irtual S chool M odel, P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool Model, and P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel, the researcher was able to conclu de that states funded virtual ed u cation for a variety of philosophical goals and objectives. Chapter 4 further defined what a given state proclaimed it was doing with its virtual school. Similar to Chapter 3 each individual state was grouped by its virtual school funding model to illus trate similarities and differences between states that utilized the same funding model. Centralized Virtual School Model States within the C entralized V irtual S chool M odel had the following virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s). T he following states also contained evidence of a centralized virtual school model but did not allow for private/publicly funded virtual school alternatives: Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina and W yoming. Conversely, Michigan and Missouri had evidence of a centralized virtual school model and allowed for private/publicly funded virtual school options The researcher was able to conclude that states within the C entralized V irtual S chool M odel fund ed virtual education for a variety of philosophical goals and objectives. Alabama In 2010, the Alabama State Board of Education required every high school student to take at least one core subject in an online manner to fulfill a

PAGE 66

66 graduation requirement 1 The ACCESS program itself was accredited by the Alabama Department of Education. 2 In order to meet the increased demand for online course enrollments, the Alabama State Department of Education created a partnership with a third party management system to aid in the delivery of course content. The public policy mission statement that announced this decision was as follows: STI, a leader in K 12 education data management solutions, announces today a partnership with the Alabama Department of Education t o provide a Web based statewide enrollment and scheduling system for the state led online learning program. LIVE (Learning In a Virtual Environment), will help the state manage scheduling and staffing for ACCESS (Alabama Connecting Clas srooms, Educators, and Students Statewide). The ACCESS distance learning program is an education initiative of the Alabama Department of Education. It provides opportunities and options for Alabama public high school students to engage in Advanced Placeme nt (AP), elective, and other courses to which they may not otherwise have access. Online learning in K 12 education continues to grow rapidly, with over 1 million students taking online courses in 2008, up 47 percent from two years earlier. However its co ntinued success requires states to make policy and funding changes, and manage a new stream of data. This is particularly important as more states establish longitudinal data systems. tion Arne Duncan frequently emphasized the importance of improving data collection systems and conducting data driven decision making to improve education outcomes. Alabama has already taken steps to track and analyze data at the state level. 3 1 Ala. Code § 290 3 1. 2 http://accessdl.state.al.us/Overview.html 3 STI Educ http://www.sti k12.com/press/infolive.pdf

PAGE 67

67 Florida T he Florida Virtual School had the largest online student enrollment in the United States 4 technology based education that provides the skills and knowledge students need for 5 T he Florida Virtual School was accredited by two agencies: The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 6 and the Commission on International and Trans Regional Accreditation. 7 The Florida Virtual School did not offer a diploma but stated ransferred back to the student's local school to count towards [sic] their graduation requirement. Home school students fulfill diploma requirements either through portfolios that often include national SAT I and II scores, or they use the services of an 8 Idaho The state of Idaho was the first state to require secondary students to pass two online credits in order to fulfill graduation requirements. 9 Every virtual school within the state of Idaho was require d by the Idaho State Department of Education to be accredited by the Northwest Accreditation Commission. 10 The Northwest Accreditation Commission mission statement defined a n online co urse for Idaho elementary and secondary students as foll ows: 4 Distanc e Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 5 areas/aboutus/Pages/Mission.aspx. 6 http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/accreditation.aspx 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 School Library http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/892800 312/idaho_implements _online_high_school.html.csp 10 http://www.k12.com/idva/who we are/accreditation

PAGE 68

68 A common unit of measure that represents successful student achievement relevant to a predefined area of study. The standard for the predefined area of study shall be determined by the particular state, informed by national guidelines. A credit is o ften defined as a unit of credit awarded for successful completion of a course, which shall include not less than 120 hours of instruction or its equivalent per year. 11 Illinois In 2009, 12 the Illinois L egislature authorized a statewide and state accredite d virtual school entitled the Illinois Virtual School. 13 policy mission statement was as follows : Illinois Virtual School increases learning opportunities for both students and e ducators throughout the state. The IVS contract objectives include activities to (1) administer, manage, and operate the Illinois Virtual School; (2) offer both synchronous and asynchronous online courses to all Illinois public, private, and home school students, grades 5 12; and (3) provide an expanded selection of high quality professional development opportunities for Illinois educators for certificate renewal purposes. 14 In addition to the Illinois Virtual School, the Chicago Public School offered courses that were delivered in a blended fashion for e lementary and secondary students through the centralized funding model. 15 Illinois policy makers were an advocate of the continued growth of virtual education as well. Collin Hitt of the Illinois Policy Institute stated: The state introduced a virtual hig h school in 2001, intended mainly for students who wanted to take advanced classes their own schools didn't offer. Today, its online program offers 120 courses to grades 5 through 12, 11 http://www.k12.com/idva/who we are/accreditation 12 http://www.ilvirtual.org/index.php?p age=about ivs 13 http://ilvirtual.org/index.php?page=home 14 http://ilvirtual.org/index.php?page=about ivs 15 to http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP BlendedLearning lr.pdf

PAGE 69

69 but only about 1,000 of the state's 1.2 million public school students in that age range sign up each semester. 16 Kentucky The Kentucky Virtual School 17 When a student completes a course, KVHS sends a final numeric score to the local school/home school that grants the credit. The local sc hool/home school will determine 18 Furthermo mission stated it offers a range of online, e learning services to help scho ols and teachers meet their goals for high quality teaching, high student performance, and a strong and supportive environment for every child. 19 Louisiana The Louisiana Virtual School 20 curriculum consisted of year long courses that increased access and were approved by the Louisiana State Department of Education. The virtual school stated the following public policy mission about increasing based high school courses delivered by certified Highly qualified Louisiana teache rs through Th e Louisiana Virtual School Students in LVS courses utilize the web, e mail, and other online and offline resources 21 Unlike traditional brick and mortar schools, the Louisiana Vi rtual School also detailed: 16 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/illinois 17 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/RR353.p df 18 http://www.kyvs.org/bbcswebdav/institution/About%20KVHS/KVHS_Q_%20A.pdf 19 http://www.kyvs.org/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp 20 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net / 21 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?faq#2

PAGE 70

70 Credit is granted and posted by the student's home school. The LVS is not a credit granting institution. Courses are either regular core courses or electives. A mid term progress report and final letter grade is issued by the Education. The local school then handles all credits according to local policy. 22 Maine The Maine Department of Education stated the following public policy mission and academic goal s for virtual education: The Maine Online Learning Program was established to provide high quality educational options for kindergarten to grade 12 students in this State using online learning programs and courses. The goals of the program are to: 1. Create educational opportunities for students in this State that may not exist without such technology. 2. Close the achievement gap between high performing and low performing students, including the gap between minority and nonminority students and between economic ally disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers. 3. Use existing educational resources, along with technology, to provide parents a broader range of educational options and to help students in the State improve their academic achievement. 4. Increase the capacity of school administrative units to provide public school educational opportunities for students whose educational needs are not being met in the regular public school program. 23 Michigan The Michigan Virtual School was accredited by the Commi ssion on International and Trans Regional Accreditation and North Central Association Commission on Accreditation. 24 In 2006, Michigan was the first state to require 22 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?faq#9 23 Ma. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. MSRA § 19152. 24 http://ww w.mivhs.org/AboutUs/Accreditation/tabid/287/Default.aspx

PAGE 71

71 students to complete an online course as a graduation requirement. 25 The Michigan Virtual School public policy mission statement defined the organization as follows: The Michigan Virtual School is an online resource that enables Michigan high schools and middle schools to provide courses (all taught by certified teachers) and other learning too ls that students wouldn't otherwise have access to. It was funded by the Michigan Legislature in July 2000 to be operated by the Michigan Virtual University a private, not for profit Michigan corporation. MVS works in cooperation with individual school districts to grant course credit and diplomas. Through MVS Michigan high school and middle school students can take a variety of courses and learn any place there is a computer and an Internet connection. We're here to help prepare our children for a lif etime of integrating technology into their work and their lives. Eligible students include: Gifted and talented students Special needs students Public and non public school students Home schooled students. 26 In addition three course styles for high school students: MVS Plus (Instructor led), which includes Advanced Placement and Fast Track (six week courses); MVS Basic (Instructor supported); and MVS Bl ended (Instructor 27 Mississippi The Mississippi Virtual Public School 28 defined its virtual education in the following public policy mission statement : Mississippi Virtual Public School (MVPS) is a web based educational service offered by the Miss issippi Department of Education to provide Mississippi students with access to a wider range of course work, with more 25 2006 Mich. Pub. Acts no. 123 26 http://www.mivhs.org/Default.aspx?tabid=246 27 Michigan Virtual http://www.mivhs.org/Courses/tabid/56/Default.aspx 28 Miss. Code Ann. § 37 161 3.

PAGE 72

72 flexibility in scheduling and with the opportunity to develop their capacities as independent learners. Students in grades 9 12 have acc ess to FREE online courses through MVPS. Priority is given to seniors and juniors. Online courses will NOT be offered that are tied to a Subject Area Test (Algebra 1, Biology, US History, English I and English II). Students may take non core content cour ses for elective credit only. MVPS is not a credit issuing or a diploma granting institution. 29 Additionally, in 2010, the Mississippi Virtual School became affiliated with the Connections Academy as a means to administrate the online courses offered to el ementary and secondary students. 30 Missouri. According to the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program, 31 mission is to offer Missouri students equal access to a wide range of high quality courses, flexibility in scheduling, and interactive online lear ning that is neither time nor 32 The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and State Board of Education stated the following reasons in favor of Missouri Virtual School instruction: The Missouri Virtual Instruction Pro gram (MoVIP) offers online courses for K 12 students statewide. Missouri certified teachers facilitate courses available via any Internet connected computer. MoVIP provides Missouri students with equal access to a wide range of coursework, anywhere, any time. MoVIP allows Missouri to: Expand the range of courses and opportunities offered to students Offer courses for students where there are no qualified teachers to teach the course 29 http://www.connectionsacademy.com/mississippi school/faqs.aspx 30 http://sites.google .com/site/liberatelearn/home/mississippi 31 Mo. Rev. Stat. §161.670. 32 http://www.movip.org/about_us/index.html

PAGE 73

73 Allow students to take a course not offered because there are not enough students to assign a teacher to teach the course at the school district Provide courses for students who have schedules that prevent them from taking a course when it is offered Present high quality instruction to students who are in alternative educati on settings or on home and hospital instruction Provide additional support and extended time to students who failed to achieve in regular courses Provides equity across programs and school in the quality of earning for Missouri students. 33 The Missouri Virtual Instruction Program offered elementary and secondary 34 during the 2010 2011 academic year. Mo ntana The University of Montana at Missoula made the following public policy mission statement in favor of the Montana Digital Academy: MTDA is specifically designed to provide unique educational opportunities to Montana students and schools. Need to ma ke up a core class? MTDA offers many of the basics. For students looking for a new challenge, we offer AP classes. We also have elective courses that expose students to subjects that may not be available in their local schools. MTDA puts no limits on le arning. Students can access coursework whenever and wherever they want. This way course conflicts are completely eliminated allowing more students to graduate on time. Our school year is uninterrupted, running through fall, winter, spring and summer. St udents in our summer school classes can access courses at home or while traveling on vacation. We have the flexibility to accommodate home schooled children as well, as long as they register for MTDA courses at their local public school. 33 Missouri Virtual Instruction Pr http://www.movip.org/about_us/index.html 34 http://www.movip.org/

PAGE 74

74 breaking down the barriers to make learning as easy as possible. 35 Each of the Montana Digital Academy courses were accredited and approved by the Montana Office of Public Instruction. 36 The academy issued the following statement regarding online education: Online education allows students to learn at their own pace and gives them an increased amount of one to one attention from teachers. An extensive class list is available with options such as AP courses or electives that might not normally be available. Scheduling conflicts are eliminated. Credit recovery courses offer students the opportunity to make up credit when needed. There are even summer school courses students can complete from home or while away on vacation. Plus, all Montana Digital Academy (MTDA) courses are taught by qualified, Montana licensed instructors and are aligned to state education standards. 37 North Carolina The North Carolina Virtual Public School 38 released the following public policy mission statement about its virtual school p rogram: In just a few short years, NCVPS has grown to become the second largest virtual school in the country, surpassing a number of schools that have been around longer. This growth can be attributed to the ever expanding set of educational options we m ake available, including: hard to staff subjects like: Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and German, over 100 courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP), credit recovery, blended courses for the Occupational Course of Study, and opportunities for participating middl e schools to offer students a chance to gain high school credit partnership and collaboration with which schools and districts all over No rth Carolina have received us. School leaders ha ve embraced NCVPS as a 35 Montana Digital Academy, http://montanadigitalacademy.org/program 36 http://montanadigitalacademy.org/faq 37 Ibid. 38 http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/history/

PAGE 75

75 service they can use to meet State Board of Education priorities, providing a 21st century learning environment for 21st century ready students. 39 The North Carolina Virtual School primarily offered courses to elementary and secondary students in a blended fashion. 40 Learning program face to face teacher is combined with the opportunities for these digital learners to engag 41 In 2002, 42 the North Carolina General Assembly created the North Carolina Virtual Public School. 43 The North Carolina Virtual Public School utilized public funding and issued th e following detailed description about its goals and mission: The North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS) is committed to raising achievement and closing learning gaps with 21st century innovation by providing access to world class learning opportunit ies for all North Carolina students. We provide the vehicle for school districts to accomplish the professionals, leaders, and systems by providing easily accessible, online learning opp Our mission is to provide skills, student support, and opportunities for 21st century learners to succeed in a globally competitive world. We offer over 100 courses including Advanced Place ment (AP), world language, Occupational Course of Study (OCS), and credit recovery courses to students across the state of North Carolina. The courses utilize the Blackboard course management software to maximize student interaction in each class. Our co urses are taught by highly qualified teachers who utilize 39 http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/directors welcome/ 40 http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/blended mobile learning/ 41 Ibid. 42 http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/history/ 43 Ibid.

PAGE 76

76 video, interactive whiteboards, wikis, active worlds, and online discussion tools to engage 21st century learners. 44 Wyoming The Wyoming Switchboard Network s 45 goal was to increase student access a nd that deliver coursework to K 46 During the 2010 2011 academic year, the Wyoming Switchboard Network increased student access by offering a total of 616 different on line courses for elementary and secondary students. 47 In addition to the states shown in the Centralized Virtual School Model, the following states also had evidence of a centralized virtual school model but did not allow for private/publicly funded virtual school alternatives: Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, and Wyoming. Conversely, Michigan and Missouri had evidence of a centralized virtual school model and allowed for private/publicly funded virtual school opti ons Table 4 1 illustrated every state within the Centralized Virtual School Model and public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) (Table 4 1) Public ly Funded Virtual School Model T he P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel reflected a variety of virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s). Within the P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel itself, the following states had evidence of virtual school 44 North Car http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/ 45 http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7334.pdf 46 http://www.wyomingswitchboard.net/Home.aspx 47 Wyoming Switchboard Networ http://www.wyomingswitchboard.net/Courses.aspx

PAGE 77

77 models with multiple public school options that allowe d for privately/publicly funded virtual school options: Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and South Carolina. Similar to Arkansas, South Dakota had evidence of a centralized virtual school model with multiple public school options that allowed for non p rofit alternatives to the state options. 48 The researcher was able to conclude that states within the P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel funded virtual education for a variety of philosophical goals and objectives. However, a major noticeable exception in comparison to the C entralized V irtual S chool M odel was the fact that no state within the P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel contained policy that addressed public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) about reducing the achievement gap, helping diverse learners, or student diversity. Alaska In 2008, 49 the state of Alaska began to offer a virtual school option for elementary and secondary students. This option contained a consortium that was comprised of eleven virtual schools wit h the goal connections. 50 mission stated that you have numerous INTERACTIVE t ools for gaining skills, concepts, & ideas. These tools are selected specifically to meet a goal (learning objective) set by the 48 http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/virtual schooling in the news 271/ 49 http://www.eed.state.ak.us/regs/filed/4AAC_33.405_4AAC_33.490.pdf 50 http://www.akdistancelearning.net/Alaska%20Distance%20Learning%20Network%20akDLN/Alaska%20D istance%20Learning%20Network%20akDLN/resources.html

PAGE 78

78 51 The Alaska Virtual profit educational service agency that provides 52 Arkansas The Arkansas Virtual Academy was funded as a full time statewide charter school offering no tuition or supplemental costs to elementary and secondary students. 53 The Arkansas Department of Education funded virtual schools and served to oversee governance and all accountability pertaining to virtual education throughout the state. The Arkansas Virtual High School mission statem ent was as follows : The purpose of the Arkansas Virtual High School is to provide an online alternative learning environment for the students of Arkansas' public schools who need assistance in completing coursework that is difficult to receive due to fact ors such as schedule conflicts, homebound due to extenuating circumstances, and other factors that might impede a student's progress through grades 9 12. 54 Established in 2000, 55 the Arkansas Virtual High School offered thirty five different courses for se condary students and the Arkansas Virtual Academy offered courses 56 for elementary students in the 2010 2011 academic year. 51 Alaska Distance L http://www.akdistancelearning.net/ (capitalization in original) 52 http://www.eed.state.ak.us/doe_news/infoexch/ix101105.html 53 http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Acts/Act1420.pdf 54 http://avhs.k12.ar.us/tutorials/about_avhs.htm 55 Distance Learning Resource Net work http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf 56 Arkansas Virtual School K http://www.k12.com/arva/how it works/k 8

PAGE 79

79 Georgia The expressed interestingly in the following manner: The Georgia Cyber Academy is the fastest growing schools in Georgia, and here's why: Our faculty of experienced, highly qualified Georgia certified teachers, who work with students and parents to achieve exceptional results and are available online and by phone. The exceptional, individualized K curriculum, which covers both the core subject areas and electives. Based on decades of education research, this curriculum packages high quality lessons with mastery based assessments that ensure students achieve success a t each and every level. The online planning and assessment tools, resources, and hands on materials ranging from textbooks to microscopes, from rocks and dirt to beautifully illustrated classic children's stories, and much more. Our supportive school commu nity, which organizes fun and informative monthly activities where GCA parents, students, and staff share their successes, helpful hints, and more. The high quality, tuition free public education that enables a learning experience that is individualized fo r each student. 57 Kansas The Kansas Online Learning Program was a statewide virtual school initiative that contained forty five different district online programs which offered courses for the elementary and secondary students in Kansas. 58 The mission sta tement of the organization was as follows: The Kansas Online Learning Program (KOLP) offers innovative, effective educational experiences while utilizing state of the art technology, an interactive and engaging curriculum provided by Lincoln Interactive a nd the guidance and support of highly qualified, Kansas Certified Instructors. Lincoln Interactive curriculum received corporate accreditation by 57 http://www.k12.com/gca/who we are 58 Liberating Lea http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/kansas

PAGE 80

80 AdvancED the parent company of the North Central Association Commission and NCAA approved accreditation. 59 Min nesota According to the Minnesota Learning Commons public policy mission statement the organization was developed to online learning. The public education partners include Minnesota State Colleges and Universi ties, University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Education along with Public K 12 schools. The partnership also enhances the collaborative efforts of 60 In the 2010 20 11 academic year, there were a total of 1,892 different courses offered th r ough the Minnesota Learning Commons for elementary and secondary students. 61 New Hampshire The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School 62 had the following mission and goals for its organization: To use the latest technologies to provide New Hampshire's high school students any time, any where access to a rigorous, personalized education that helps them learn today, graduate tomorrow and prepare for the future. In addition, the Academ y is also a viable option for high school dropout students who wish to earn a high school diploma while maintaining a job. Through the Academy, students can take the courses they need at times that accommodate their work schedule. 63 59 http://www.kansasonlinelearning.org/kansasAbout.html 60 http://mnlearningcommons.org/ 61 http://www.mnlearningcommons.org/course search.php?action=search&icode=&cip=&schoolType=&enrollmentType=&creditType=&sor t=&page=25 62 http://www.vlacs.org/index.php/about us 63 http://www.vlacs.org/index.php/about us

PAGE 81

81 Ohio Since 1997, 64 ele mentary and secondary students in Ohio have had the option of enrolling in twenty seven different eCommunity schools. 65 However, the Ohio state legislature never created a statewide virtual school. 66 An eCommunity school was similar to a charter school, b ut the eCommunity school was computer based, which allowed students to work from home. 67 The state issued the following public policy mission statement concerning eCommunity schools: Community schools in Ohio known elsewhere as "charter schools" are pu blicly funded and publicly accountable, but independently run, non profit educational institutions. As public schools, they are open to any student up to age 21, free of tuition. Separate from the traditional public district schools, community schools are required to abide by all state curriculum standards. However, community schools have the freedom to offer a wide variety of non sectarian educational programs. 68 South Carolina The South Carolina Virtual School Program 69 proclaimed the following: The mi ssion of the South Carolina Virtual School Program (SCVSP) is to provide high quality, standards based, online instruction to the students of South Carolina as a strategy for increasing the graduation rate in the state. By supplementing and expanding the conventional school day, the SCVSP 64 http://educa tion.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=879&Co ntent=94438 65 http://www.o de.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=59539 66 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD /DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=59539 67 http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/sp/view/sp/12 68 Ohio Council of Community Schools http://64.78.37.107/about/ 69 http://scvspconnect.ed.sc. gov/

PAGE 82

82 provides effective alternatives to districts and schools to deal with economic, staffing and scheduling issues. 70 The South Carolina Virtual School Program offered seventy three different credited course options and five n on credited exam preparation classes for elementary and secondary students. 71 In 2009, the state of South Carolina was ranked second in the nation for developing quality online programs by the Center for Digital Education. 72 South Dakota The South Dakota Virtual School public policy mission statement identified students can be assured that course offerings meet the state's high academic 73 The state of South Dakota offered a to tal of 359 courses for elementary and secondary students through the South Carolina Virtual School in the 201 0 201 1 academic year. 74 In addition to the states listed in the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model the following states also had evidence of virt ual school models with multiple public school options that allowed for privately/publicly funded virtual school options: Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and South Carolina. Simil ar to Arkansas, South Dakota had evidence of a centralized virtual school model with multiple public school options that 70 http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/index.php?q=mission 71 http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/sites/default/files/2011 12%20Course%20Offerings%2010 25 11.pdf 72 cond in the Nation for Develo ping Online http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Press%20Release_Online %20learning%20report%2011 17 09.pdf 73 http://www.sdvs.k12.sd.us/ 74 http://www.sdvs.k12.sd.us/Students/Courses.aspx

PAGE 83

83 allowed for non profit alternatives to the state options. 75 Table 4 2 illustrated every state within the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model and public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration( s) (Table 4 2) Privately/ Publicly Funded Virtual School Model States wi thin the Privately/P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool model had the following virtual school public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspir ation(s). Within the Privately/P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel itself, the following states also had evidence of virtual school models with public or private school options that allowed for private/publicly funded virtual school alternatives to any state model: Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The researcher was able to conclude t hat states within the Privately/P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel funded virtual education for a variety of philosophical goals and objectives even though they were funded through the same funding model. Arizona According to the Internat ional Association for K 12 Online Learning (iNACOL) the Technology Assisted Project primary approach to providing an Internet based alternative to learning in traditional brick and 76 Furthermore, th e Arizona State Legislature defined the Technology Assisted Project Based Instruction Program in the following public policy mission statement: 75 http://vir tualschooling.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/virtual schooling in the news 271/ 76 International Association for K Based Instruction http:// www.inacol.org/research/docs/TAPBI.pdf

PAGE 84

84 Technology Assisted Project Based Instruction (TAPBI) is an educational pilot program in which participating sch ools may employ technology assisted learning methodologies, such as computer assisted learning systems, virtual classrooms, virtual tutoring, electronic field trips, on line help desks, group chat sessions and non computer [sic] based activities to address the unique needs and learning styles needed in the information age. Currently, seven traditional public schools and seven charter schools in Arizona are authorized to offer the TAPBI program. 77 The Technology Assisted Project Based Instruction Program del ivered course content to elementary and secondary students in a variety of ways. The North American Council for Online Learni ng issued the following public statement for the Arizona Legislature: Education delivery takes many forms TAPBI schools typically provide instruction through Internet based applications that allow schools to create and deliver learning content, such as online reading materials, interactive exercises, discussion forums, video clips, and quizzes. Their comprehensive learning managemen t systems also typically include tools for monitoring student participation and progress, such as instruction time logs and electronic grade books. To ensure that students can access and interact with learning management systems, the TAPBI schools general ly require students to have access to a highspeed Internet connection and a computer that meets certain technical requirements. Most schools also provide small computer labs for student use, and three schools even lend students the needed equipment. 78 Cali fornia In 1999, 79 the state of California established a statewide initiative entitled University of California College Prep. 80 The organization mission statement proclaimed: 77 http://www.azl eg.gov/briefs/Senate/TECHNOLOGY%20ASSISTED%20PROJECT BASED%20INSTRUCTION.pdf 78 http://www.i nacol.org/research/docs/TAPBI.pdf 79 http://www.edpath.com/images/VHSReport.pdf 80 http://www.uccp.org/

PAGE 85

85 University of California College Prep publishes free high qualit y online courses and content to benefit California students, with a special emphasis on helping underserved students gain college eligibility. We make our UC approved Advanced Placement and college prep courses freely available to California students, tea chers and schools. Our courses are aligned to California content standards and are College Board certified. 81 The University of California College Prep was developed as a way to increase student access to Advanced Placement courses. The organization state d: integrating with the latest technologies and media. In this way students and teachers will find dynamic educational content easily accessible through the devices they use everyda y. With UC College Prep's courses, California educators have 21st century educational technology and top quality approved curriculum at their fingertips. 82 Colorado The mission of the Colorado Online Learning 83 organization was stated de high quality online learning options for students, teachers, 84 There were a total of ninety two different online course options for elementary and secondary students to take through the Colo rado Online Learning program. 85 Connecticut According to the Connecticut Virtual Learning Center, 86 Virtual Learning Center offers online supplemental courses to CT high school and home schooled students as a complement as well as an alternative to traditional courses. Curriculum will engage students by connecting real world applications to learning 81 http://www.uccp.org/ 82 http://www.uccp.org/index.php/about us/ 83 http://www.col.k12.co.us/aboutus/history.html 84 Colorado Online Lear http://www.col.k12.co.us/ 85 http://www.col.k12.co.us/courses/course descriptions.html 86 http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2011/52.PDF

PAGE 86

86 through problem solving and/or project 87 In regard to online course offerings, the Connecticut Virtual Learning Center is sued the following public policy mission statement : The CT Virtual Learning Center has a variety of options for the diverse needs of CT's High School students. From Credit Recovery and full High School courses, available on a flexible enrollment basis, to Advanced Placement and World Languages with fixed start and end dates, all of our courses are taught by CT certified teachers. 88 Hawaii Hawaii was a unique state because it had a single statewide brick and mortar school district with several virtual scho ols that utilized the Hawaii Department of 89 During the 201 0 201 1 academic year, the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network increased online student access when it offered forty nine different courses for secondary students. 90 The organization mission HVLN/E School. As HVLN/E School expands, future plans include offering supplementary middle and elementary courses as well as cred 91 Indiana The two major virtual charter schools in Indiana were the Hoosier Academy Virtual Pilot School, 92 and the Indiana Connection Academy Virtual Pilot 87 CT Virtual Learn http://www.ctvirtuallearning.org/about.cfm 88 http://www.ctvirtuallearning.org/courses. cfm 89 http://hvln.k12.hi.us/ 90 http://165.248.30.40/hvln/session_detail_public.jsp?docid=17 91 http://hawaiivln.k12.hi.us/apply to teach faqs 92 http://www.k12.com/ha/how it works

PAGE 87

87 School. 93 The Hoosier Academy Virtual Pilot School public policy mission st ated that, free, statewide public charter school that uses the K curriculum. 94 In addition, the Indiana Connection Academy Virtual Pilot School public p olicy mission free, online public school that brings a fully accredited public 95 The state legislature gave the Indiana State Department of Education the authority to fund and operate these schools as well. 96 Iowa The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy 97 issued the following public policy mission statement about its purpose: The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy (IOAPA) has been established to deliver Advanc ed Placement (AP) courses to high school students across the State of Iowa utilizing Apex Learning on line technology and the Iowa Communications Network (ICN). AP gives students an opportunity to take college level courses and exams while still in high s chool. The focus of IOAPA is on accredited rural and small schools in Iowa. 98 In 2004, 99 the Iowa legislature authorized the growth of online education with the creation of an online program named Iowa Learning Online. 100 In addition to offering 93 http://www.connectionsacademy.com/indiana school/our school/home.aspx 94 http://www.k12.com/ha/how it works 95 Indiana C http://www.connectionsacademy.com/indiana school/our school/home.aspx 96 Ind. Code §20 24 7. 97 http://www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/programs/students/ ioapa/ 98 Ibid. 99 http://www.iowalearningonline.org/about.cfm

PAGE 88

88 Advance Plac e ment courses online, the Iowa L egislature created policies that allowed students from every level access to online course options. Iowa Learning Online stated the following about its mission across the state. The Internet as well as the Iowa Communications Network (ICN) video classrooms are utilized to deliver distance education to students of different 101 Maryland The Mar yland Virtual School 102 had the following mission and opportunity statement about its virtual school opportunities for elementary and secondary students: All students and educators in Maryland public schools have the opportunity and ability to enhance the e ducational experience through access to high quality web delivered courses and instructional support. The Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunities Program (MVLO), an educational service managed by the Maryland State Department of Education, is designed to e xpand the access of Maryland public school students to challenging curricula aligned to the Maryland Content Standards as well as to other appropriate standards through the delivery of high quality online courses. 103 There were forty nine different virtual s chool course options for students during the 201 0 201 1 academic year. 104 Massachusetts Massachusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE) stated the following about its public policy mission 100 Ibid. 101 http://www.iowalearningonline.org/about.cfm 102 http://mdk12online.org/ 103 Maryland Virtual Learning Opportuni http://mdk12online.org/ 104 http://mdk12online.org/docs/MVSCour seDescriptions.pdf

PAGE 89

89 Secondary Education's Mass achusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE) is the Commonwealth's set of web based applications, resources, and tools for students, 105 Massachusetts also offered students charter school options which the Department of Elem entary and Secondary Education described in the encourage innovative educational practices. Charter schools are funded by tuition charges assessed against the school districts w here the students reside. The state 106 Nebraska The Nebraska Virtual Partnership was developed in 2011 between the ducation, Educational Service Unit 107 The goals of the Nebraska Virtual Partnership were as follows: Establishing a statewide virtual/digital education initiative. Developing a plan and bu dget for state support of online high school courses in order to make opportunities available to all Nebraska high school students, with an emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), Advanced Placement, and other courses unavailab le in rural and other high schools. Establishing a single statewide virtual education resources website. Organizing content and professional development and enhancing statewide equity of access to virtual education opportunities. 105 http://massone.mass.edu/about/ 106 http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/ 107 http://nebraska.edu/media resource center/features/1725 new nebraska virtual partnership will increase online learning opportunities for students.html

PAGE 90

90 Promoting digital educa tion resources and, where necessary, promoting policy reform to enhance and sustain virtual education in Nebraska. Leveraging existing resources in Nebraska to promote high quality and cost effectiveness. 108 Nevada The Nevada Virtual Academy had a curric ulum that stated the following educational goals: Use the K 12, Inc curriculum, which is approved by the Department of Education and aligns with Nevada standards Is staffed by highly qualified, licensed educators Combines powerful technology with great te aching Can be delivered anywhere internet access is available Combines both synchronous and asynchronous instruction Provides students and families with a choice Creates learning opportunities different from than the bri ck and mortar school Creates closer, more individualized attention and relationships between students, teachers, and parents. 109 New Jersey The New Jersey Virtual School issued the following public policy mission statement about the objective of its instit ution: The NJVS delivers quality, online instruction to high school and middle school students in grades 6 12 for remediation, promotion, or to meet New Jersey high school graduation requirements. Since 2002, NJVS has provided affordable courses to more than 450 school districts, agencies, 108 University of Nebr http://nebraska.edu/docs/features/virtual partnership/VirtualScholarsPilotProg ram.pdf 109 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Assembly/ED/AED254L.pdf

PAGE 91

91 alternative programs, and residential facilities in New Jersey with over 14,000 enrollments. 110 Additionally, the New Jersey Department of Education issued the following information about the objectives of its state virtu al charter schools: Charter school legislation was passed to give choice for all parents for their children's education. The intent of this legislation is to: Improve student learning and achievement; Increase the availability of choice to parents and stu dents when selecting a learning environment; Encourage the use of different and innovative learning methods; Establish a new system of accountability for schools; Make the school the unit for educational improvement; Establish new professional opportunitie s for teachers. 111 New Mexico The New Mexico statewi statement indicated NM provides eLearning services to New Mexico PK 12 schools, higher education institut ions, and government agencies. We reduce geographic and capacity barriers to educational opportunity while increasing the digital 112 structure was unique because the statewide virtual school offered courses for elementary stud ents all the way th r ough post secondary aged students. IDEAL NM encompasses all aspects of learning from traditional public and higher education environments to teacher 110 New Jersey Virtual Scho http://www.njvs.org/WhyChooseNJVSFAQs.aspx 111 http://www.njcharterschools.org/Statistics/DOEStatistics.aspx 112 IDEAL http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get content/content/about_ideal nm

PAGE 92

92 professional developmen t, continuing education and workforce education. IDEAL NM is a joint program of the New Mexico Public Education and Higher Education Departments. 113 North Dakota The North Dakota Center for Distance Education 114 defined itself and its structure in the foll owing public policy mission statement: The North Dakota Center for Distance Education (ND CDE) is an accredited non profit, distance education school that has been providing educational opportunities to students around the world since 1935. ND CDE's cour ses are available to any students in grades 6 12 ND CDE is familiar and works well with a variety of educational arrangements including public, priva te, home, and charter schools. ND CDE provides instructiona l support for all its courses. All students receive one on one help. 115 Oklahoma Oklahoma did not have a state virtual school. However, it consisted of two large statewide online programs: the Oklahoma Virtual Academy 116 and the Oklahoma Virtual High School. 117 The Oklahoma Virtual Academy issued the following public policy mission statement about the structure of its online delivery: At Oklahoma Virtual Academy, all students interact with one or more state certified teachers (depending on grade level) and communicate regularly with their teachers thro ugh e mail, telephone, online synchronized opportunities, and direct instruction. Each OKVA family receives all instructional materials, including a wide array of textbooks, CDs, videos, and other hands on tools and resources. These materials complement the 113 IDEAL bout Ideal http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get content/content/about_ideal nm 114 https://www.ndcde.org/Home.aspx 115 https://www.ndcde.org/Home.aspx 116 http://www.k12.com/okva/ 117 http://www.oklahomavirtualhighschool.com/about.htm l

PAGE 93

93 interactive online elements of the program, ensuring that students receive instruction using the best method for each subject. 118 The Oklahoma Virtual High School the other primary virtual school in Oklahoma issued the following public policy mission s tatement : Oklahoma Virtual High School partners with school districts across the state and is one of the largest virtual middle and high schools in Oklahoma. We use the Internet to deliver your education, which opens up a world of flexible learning solut ions to help you graduate and find success when your local public school's traditional options don't fit your needs for grades 6 12. 119 Oregon goal Superintendent liver real world readiness so Oregon students graduate prepared to succeed in today's global, knowledge based economy. ORVSD gives teachers the tools they need to get our students ready for college, work and life in the 21st century. 120 In addition, Orego n had numerous different publicly funded online programs for elementary and secondary students such as the Oregon Virtual Academy Charter School. 121 Pennsylvania The publicly funded Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School issued the following public policy mis sion statement about the vision of its organization: The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School will be dedicated to providing student centered service in a professional and compassionate manner utilizing highly trained and committed staff to individualize edu cational strategies that em power each student to succeed. As the leader of cyber 118 http://www.k12.com/okva/how it works 119 http://oklahomavirtualhighschool.com/about.html 120 http://www.orvsd.org 121 http://www.k12.com/orva/

PAGE 94

94 education in Pennsylvania, PA Cyber will continue to develop best practices and will be a model of academic excellence. 122 Rhode Island The Virtual Learning Academy in the st ate of Rhode Island had the following goals: Increasing test scores Increasing student retention Lowering dropout rates Increasing graduation rates Increasing/supplementing course offerings Increasing self esteem & self confidence Developing communication skills, independent thinking skills & goal setting skills. 123 Tennessee E 4 TN worked with each of the 156 school districts in Tennessee and several district level schools which increased student access to online education. 124 There were fifty eight courses 125 o ffered to elementary and se condary students during the 2010 2011 academic year. Furthermore, the Virtual Public School Act stated the following goals: WHEREAS, meeting the educational needs of children in Tennessee's schools is of the greatest importance to the future welfare of the State; and WHEREAS, closing the achievement gap between high performing students, including the gap between minority and non minority students, 122 http://www.pacyber.org/about.jsp?pageId=2161392240601301473074778 123 http://www.nric ri.org/virtual learning academy 124 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/tennessee 125 E 4 TN http://sreb edtech.wikispac es.com/file/view/Course+List+ +Tennessee.pdf

PAGE 95

95 and between economically disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers, is a significant and present challenge; and WHEREAS, providing a broader range of educational options to parents and utilizing existing resources, along with technology, may help students in Tennessee improve their academic achievement; and WHEREAS, many sch ool districts currently lack the capacity to provide other public school choices for students whose schools are high priority schools. 126 Texas In 2007, 127 the Texas Legislature established policy for the Texas Education Agency that created both the Texas Vi rtual School Network and Electronic Course Program. 128 As a result, e lementary and secondary students were given the opportunity to take advantage of the Texas Legislature access to virtual charter school s with the options of th e Texas Connections Academy at Houston, 129 Texas Virtual Academy 130 at Southwest, 131 and iQ Academy 132 Utah Our mission is to educate, remediate, accelerate, and graduate Utah's diverse lear ners with caring, qualified teachers using current technology to provide rigorous curricula, timely access to quality online instruction, and prompt professional feedback to student 126 http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0288.pdf 127 http://www.txvsn.org/ 128 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4840&me nu_id=2147483665 129 http://www.connectionsacademy.com/texas houston school/home.aspx 130 http://www.k12.com/txva/who we are 131 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/texas 132 http://iqacademytx.com/program

PAGE 96

96 133 A total of forty six courses were off ered to students during the 2010 2011 academic year through the Utah Electronic High School. 134 Vermont The Vermont Virtual Learning Cooperative issued the following public policy mission statement about the structure and objective of its organization: Vermont Virtual is a partnershi p of Vermont schools that offer online courses to students in K 12 institutions across Vermont. This partnership offers a variety of high quality courses that can expand the learning opportunities for students seeking challenging and engaging curriculum i n a non traditional approach. All students need multiple opportunities to access courses and content with high engagement and interest. Courses in Vermont Virtual include foreign languages, AP courses, numerous academic and elective courses, as well as t hose that provide support to struggling students. In addition to offering online courses, Vermont Virtual also provides summer school, professional development for the staff and students more availability, accessibility and flexibility for their learning. 135 Virginia The Virtual Virginia online school was publicly funded and issued the following public policy mission statement about its purpose: As a program of the Virginia Department of E ducation, Virtual Virginia (VVa) offers online Advanced Placement (AP), world language, core academic, and elective courses to students across the Commonwealth and nation. Virtual Virginia is committed to providing high quality, rigorous course content wi Our program strives to provide instruction that meets the individual needs of students. The technology of the 21 st century provides a unique opportunity for educators to reach students who want the experience of online courses. 136 133 http://www.schools.utah.gov/ehs/ 134 Utah Electroni http://www.schools.utah.gov/ehs/classes.htm 135 https://docs.google.com/a/vtvlc.org/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5_g rLhQEwhY2YwY2M2ZGYtYWIyNi00MzQyLWE4NDctMjg5NzIzZGM 2MmZm&hl=en&authkey=CLe7sbMO 136 http://www.virtualvirginia.org/aboutus/index.html

PAGE 97

97 Washington In 2009, 137 the Digital Learning Department within the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 138 was created as the st ate virtual school of Washington. The Digital Learning Department predominantly focused on increasing online access by offering a greater number of courses to elementary and secondary students. The Digital Learning Department stated the following about i ts goal for equal access to 600+ online courses available through an easy registration system that saves time and money. This ease of access is further enhanced by ong oing teacher 139 West Virginia The West Virginia Department of Education created the West Virginia Virtual School 140 public po licy mission statement was issued in regard to using virtual education to lower the dropout rate: The WV Department of Education is dedicated to reducing dropout rates and increasing graduation rates for students in West Virginia. To this end, the WV Virt ual School is unveiling onTargetWV a program that will allow students to recover credits they need for graduation and help them develop skills and work habits that contribute to their continued academic success. The new onTargetWV program offers rigorous credit recovery courses with additional scaffolding to sustain learning. These courses are engaging, interactive, and provide differentiated instruction to supply the extra support students need to be successful. An online instructor grades works, answe rs questions, and provides individualized instruction as needed. 141 137 http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/about/ 138 Ibid. 139 http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/about/ 140 http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2450.html 141 http://wvde.state.wv.us/technology/

PAGE 98

98 Wisconsin The Wisconsin Virtual School defined its purpose and mission in the following public policy mission statement : Wisconsin Virtual School (WVS), Wisconsin's Web Academy, is an onli ne course service provider that partners with school districts throughout the state, to offer online courses to middle and high school students. WVS and high school curriculum. W VS takes care of the details, providing the content, platform, Wisconsin certified online teachers, technical support, training, server, and much more. With WVS, districts can offer online options to their students with minimal cost and time. Districts r etain control of key policy decisions and the enrollment. WVS helps districts define their policies for online learning. 142 Collectively, states in the P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel consisted of either a state virtual school or consortium, and had several private school options that were available to elementary and secondary students. This funding model acknowledged that elementary and secondary students must be afforded the option of choosing from multiple publicly funded virtual schools o r private/for profit and non profit virtual schools. In addition to the states discussed in the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model, the following states also had evidence of virtual school models with public or private school options that all owed for private/publicly funded virtual school alternatives to any state model: Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Te nnessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin Table 4 3 illustrated every state within the Private/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model and public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) (Table 4 3) 142 http://www.wisconsinvirtualschool.org/

PAGE 99

99 Alternative Virtual School Models Delaware and New York As mentioned in Chapter 3 the states of Delaware and New York did not fall within one of the three primary virtual school funding models. Therefore, the researcher was unable to expand upon the p ublic policy goals of virtual education in the states of Delaware and New York. Summary Chapter 4 illustrate d a breakdown and analysis of data that were used to answer the forth miss ion statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s)? Within the C entralized V irtual S chool M odel, P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool Model, and P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel, the researcher was able to determine that individual states funded virtu al education for a variety of different philosophical goals and objectives. The researcher also concluded the use of virtual school funding varied from state to state There were inconsistencies among philosophical ideologies such as mission statements, goals, and reducing the dropout rate regardless of the funding model an individual state utilized For example, both California and West Virginia used the P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M California Coll ege Prep school focused on increasing student access to advanced placement courses whereas the West Virginia Virtual School focused on reducing the its onTargetWV progra m.

PAGE 100

100 T able 4 1 Public Policy Mission Statement(s), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Centralized Virtual School Model State Increase Access Reduce Dropout Rate / Credit Recovery Higher Quality Education / Increase Student Achievement / 21st Century Global Skills / One on One Instruction Reduce th e Achievement Gap / Diverse Learners / Student Diversity Alabama Florida Idaho Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Maine Michigan Miss. Missouri Montana North Carolina Wyoming

PAGE 101

101 T able 4 2 Public Policy Mission Statement(s), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Publicly Funded Virtual School Model State Increase Access Reduce Dropout Rate / Credit Recovery Higher Quality Education / Increase Student Achievement / 21st Century Global Skills / One on One Instruction Reduce the Achievement Gap / Diverse Learners / Student Diversity Alaska Arkansas Georgia Kansas Minnesota New Hamp. Ohio South Carolina South Dakota

PAGE 102

102 T able 4 3 Public Policy Mission Statement(s), Goal(s) and/or Aspiration(s) of states within the Privately/Publicly Funded Virtual School Model State Increase Access Reduce Dropout Rate / Credit Recovery Higher Quality Education / Increase Studen t Achievement / 21st Century Global Skills / One on One Instruction Reduce the Achievement Gap / Diverse Learners / Student Diversity Arizona California Colorado Conn. Hawaii Indiana Iowa Maryland Mass. Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Penn. Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Wash. West Virginia Wisconsin

PAGE 103

103 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION / SUMMARY This study allowed the researcher to examine the following research questions: 1. Did a given state utilize a virtual school funding model? 2. Did a given state utilize a C entralized V irtual S chool M odel, P ublic ly F unded V irtual S chool M odel, or a P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel? 3. When a state virtual school existed, did policy/statute allow for students to enroll in alternatives to the statewide virtual school? 4. ool public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s)? Significance of the Study The significance of this study was twofold. First, the study determined what type of virtual school funding model was being used in a given state. The state s policies and actions were then divided into three separate categories organized by what virtual school funding model a given state utilized Second, the collective analysis of all fifty models allowed the researcher to crea te an overview of how elementary and secondary virtual education was funded in the United States. The mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s). Implicatio ns of the Study The major implication s of this study was that it illustrated how a given state utilized a specific virtual school funding model, and mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s). Similar to a one way analysis of variance, ANOVA, the similarities and differences within the three funding models were compared within the model itself, and then compared across all models in the ensuing explanations.

PAGE 104

104 C entralized V irtual S chool M odel The C entralized V i rtual S chool M odel contained a total of thirteen states with a variety of public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) The states of Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Wy oming contained evidence of mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) addressing increas ing student access. Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and North Carolina addressed reducing the dropout rate / credit recovery. Matters of higher quality educatio n / inc reasing student achievement / Twenty First C entury global skills / one on one instruction were addressed by Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, and Montana. T he states of Maine and North Carolina contained public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) about reducing the achievement gap / diverse learners / student diversity Only Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and North Carolina addressed more than one of the categories Publicly Funded V irtual S chool M odel The P ublicly F un ded V irtual S chool M odel contained a total of nine states with a variety of public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) The states of Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Ohio contained evidence of mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspir ation(s) addressing increasing student access. Arkansas and South Carolina addressed reducing the dropout rate / credit recovery. Matters of higher quality education / increasing student achievement / Twenty First Century global skills / one on one instr uction were addressed by Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and South Dakota. No states contained public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) about reducing the achievement gap / diverse learners /

PAGE 105

105 student diversi ty. Only Maine, New Hampshire and South Carolina addressed more than one of the categories Private/Publicly Funded V irtual S chool M odel The P rivately/ P ublicly F unded V irtual S chool M odel contained a total of twenty six states with a variety of public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) The states of Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin contained evidence of mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) addressing increasing student access. Hawaii, Rhode Island, and West Virginia addressed reducing the dropout rate / credit recovery. Matters of higher quality education / increasing student achievement / Twenty First Century global skills / one on one instruction were addressed by Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia California, Co nnecticut, Iowa, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah contained public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) about reducing the achievement gap / diverse learners / student diversity. Only Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode I sland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia addressed more than one of the categories Three V irtual S chool M odel s Combined. Combined forty eight states fit into one of the three funding models and collectively contained a variety of public policy mis sion statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) The states of Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

PAGE 106

106 Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming contained evidence of mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) addressing increasing student access. Arkansas Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, So uth Carolina, and West Virginia addressed reducing the dropout rate / credit recovery. Matters of higher quality education / increasing student achievement / Twenty First Century globa l skills / one on one instruction were addressed by Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dak ota, Vermont, and Virginia The states of California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Utah contained public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) about reducing the achievement gap / diverse learners / student diversity. Only Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia addressed more than one of the categories In summ ary, regardless of which funding model a given state utilized, in the public arena each state was engaged in similar activity T here was as much variance between funding models as there were within public policy mission statement(s), goal(s) and/or aspiration(s) However, since inconsistent educational methodologies were used among states, the r esearcher was unable to determine what /if any funding model was the mo st efficient and/ or resourceful It was also unclear about what

PAGE 107

107 evaluation stru cture s were being used for philosophical ideals goal of improving student self esteem throug h the use of virtual education Topics for Further Research A study that would advance online educational research would be one that includes university funding models as opposed to just elementary and secondary schools. Researching issues of equit y and adequacy in regard to the funding mechanisms of virtual education in every state should be considered as well. Additionally a study that mea sures both the cost efficiency of virtual schooling and/or student achievement should be considered since little data has been published in the literature. Conclusions The rapid growth of virtual education presents unique challenges to public education p olicymakers throughout the United States. Due to widespread concerns related to access and equity in public elementary and secondary education, educators have continued to seek funding, through legislation, for virtual schools. Whet her a state legislatur e utilized a centralized model or allowed each student to choose a public or private virtual school option, the promotion and development of virtual schools in the United States has proven to be a primary issue for public education policymakers. The cost e ffectiveness of virtual education compared to traditional, brick and mortar schools has been a continual issue for state policymakers and school administrators. With limited data to reference, financial analysis related to the long term return on investme nt was diffi cult. The average startup cost for an elementary and

PAGE 108

108 secondary virtual school was approximately $1.6 million. 1 While initial costs were significant, the potential for long term cost savings was greater than with a brick and mortar school (e.g a virtual school would not have the same operational costs maintenance, utilities, security as traditional schools; virtual schools typically have fewer teachers and administrators). Although the potential for long term cost savings was prevalent, loca l school districts face d imminent financial problems due to the rapid growth of virtual education and the immediate financial burden facing schools districts responsible for allocating additional funds to cover per student overhead costs for students enrol led in virtual schools. Specifically, for those elementary and secondary students who opt ed for virtual schools in lieu of home school resour ces, the financial burden shifted from the family to taxpayers. Further, one could argue that unrestricted school choice has diluted local political control. 2 In essence, parents and students who were afforded the opportunity to utilize their own rationale to choose between virtual education and a traditional brick and mortar school serve d as a transformative measure to ensure competition and reform throughout public elementary and secondary education. The ability to enroll in a virtual school in lieu of a traditional brick and mortar school within a given student school district ensured the continued competi tion for public elementary a nd secondary students and allowed virtual schools to become the de facto educational vouchers of the Twenty First Century. Thus, public education al policymakers can continue to fund and 1 Ruth http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7918 2 S. F. Abernathy. School Choice and the Future of American Democracy Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.

PAGE 109

109 develop virtual education throughout the United States as a method of increasing student access and choice.

PAGE 110

110 REFERENCES 20 U.S.C. § 6301. 2006 Mich. Pub. Acts no. 123 S. F. Abernathy. School Choice and the Future of American Democracy. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press. http://accessdl.state.al.us/Overview.html John Adsit. "A Report to the Colorado Online Education Programs Study Committee." http://www.dkfoundation.org/pdf/FundingOnlineEd Jadsit.pdf Ala. Code § 290 3 1. 3 http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290 3 1.pdf http://www.alsde.edu/FileViewe r/AEN/September2008.pdf http://www.eed.state.ak.us/doe_news/infoexch/ix101105.html Alask http://www.eed.state.ak.us/regs/filed/4AAC_33.405_4AAC_33.490.pdf Alaska http://www.akdistancelearning.net/ http://www.akdistancelearning.net/Alaska%20Distance%20Learning%20Network %20akDLN/Alaska%20Distance%20Learning%20Network%20akDLN/resources. htm l Methodology for E http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200402C035. pdf http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te80 0.htm#issue http://www.asbj.com/MainMenuCategory/Archive/2009/No vember/The Role of Online Schools in Choice.html

PAGE 111

111 http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/49leg/1R/Senate/SummaryE D.pdf Based Instruction Program http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/TECHNOLOGY%2 0ASSISTED%20PROJEC T BASED%20INSTRUCTION.pdf http://adesharepoint2.a rkansas.gov/memos/Lists/Approved%20Memos/DispForm 2.aspx?ID=19 http://arkansased.org/about/pdf/current/ade_126_limited_charter_schools_10120 9_current.pdf http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assemb ly/2009/R/Acts/Act1420.pdf http://avhs.k12.ar.us/tutorials/about_avhs.htm Arkansas Virtual School K http://www.k12.com/arva/how it works/k 8 Online Learning," School Finance 101 (blog), January 10, 2012, http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/misunderstanding misrepresenting the costs economics of online learning/ Bruce Baker, Prest on Green, and Craig Richards, Financing Education Systems, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, 2008), 98. Vern Brimley, Jr., Deborah Verstegen, and Rulon Garfield, Financing Education in a Climate of Change, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson 2012), 1. http://www.edpath.com/images/VHSRep ort.pdf http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED462923.pdf

PAGE 112

112 rations and Activities of Online http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/2010_AnnualReport_Online Programs.pdf Colorado Online http://www.col.k12.co.us/aboutus/history.html http://www.col.k12.co.us/courses/coursedescriptions.html http://www.col.k12.co.us/ http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/http;//www.portal.state.pa.us;80/portal/server. pt/gateway/PTARGS_ 0_122943_910520_0_0_18/2010_2011_Cyber_List.pdf http://www.ccsnh.edu/news/es tart.html http://www.connectionsacademy.com/news/Mississ ippi_Virtual_School_Connecti ons_Academy.aspx http://www.ctvirtuallearning.org/about.cfm http://www.ctvirtuallearning.org/courses.cfm 20 Council Report and http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/ddoe/p20council/docs/Dual%20Enrollment% 20final%20report.pdf 2011 Louisiana Virtual http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/documents/LVS%20Memo_Programmatic% 20Changes_2010 2011.pdf 2011 Louisiana http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/documents/LVS%20Memo_Programmatic% 20Changes_2010 2011.pdf http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/about/ Distance Learning Resource Network http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf

PAGE 113

113 http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlinepublicschools/a/MainePublic.htm http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf /ERB0407.pdf https://www.e4tn.org/home/about/ E4TN http ://sreb edtech.wikispaces.com/file/view/Course+List+ +Tennessee.pdf http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_whyitmatters.html http://www.edpath.com/images/VHSReport.pdf http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/HouseContent/Approved/Web%2 0Site/educatio n_fact_sheets/2011/documents/2010 11%20School%20District%20Virtual%20Instruction%20Programs.3.pdf http://www.flvs.net/ar eas/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/accreditation.aspx http://www.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/Mission.aspx http://ww w.flvs.net/areas/aboutus/Pages/quickfactsaboutFLVS.aspx http://www.francisschool.com/ FRS § 1002.45. FRS §1002.37. FRS §1002.45. http://www.k12.com/gca/who we are 8 1 http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160 8 1 .01.pdf http://www.gavirtualschool.org/

PAGE 114

114 Georgia Dept. of http://www.gavirtualschool.org/Portals/2/PDFs/History%20of%20GAVS.pdf http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/pdf/hb881.pdf http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/pdf/ sb610.pdf 12 Virtual http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Glass_Virtual.pdf http://www.halstromhs.org/ Linda Harasim, "Shift Happens Online Education as a New Paradigm in Learning." Internet and Higher Education, 3, no. 1 2 (2000): 41 61. Hawaii V http://hawaiivln.k12.hi.us/about us http://hvln.k12.hi.us/ http://hawaiivln.k12.hi.us/apply to teach faqs http://165.248.30.40/hvln/session_detail_public.jsp?docid=17 http://hawaiivln.k 12.hi.us/member schools http://www.heritage.org/applications/schoolchoice/la http://www.k12.com/ha/how it works http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/domain/2110 http://www.idahodigitallearning.org/Students/AboutTheAcademy.aspx A http://www.idahodigitallearning.org/Portals/0/Files/Board/2009_IDLA_Legislation %5B1%5D.pdf http://www.k12.com/idva/who we are/accreditation

PAGE 115

115 IDEAL http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get con tent/content/about_ideal nm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex t.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&D ocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5168&GAID=10&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session http://ilvirtual.org/index.php?page= about ivs http://ilvirtual.org/index.php?page=faq http://ilvirtual.org/index.php?page=home iNACOL: International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/p ress/nacol_fast_facts.pdf Ind. Code § 20 24 7 12. Ind. Code § 20 24 7. http://w ww.connectionsacademy.com/indiana school/our school/home.aspx http://www.ideal nm.org/home/get content/ content/about_ideal nm http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=21703 http://icee.isu.edu/Publications All/PS&ERPublications/PBVirtu alLearning.pdf International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/research/national standards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2 .pdf International Association for K http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/TAPB I.pdf Iowa Code § 257.11. http://www.iowalearningonline.org/about.cfm

PAGE 116

116 http://www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/programs/students/ioapa/ http://iqacademytx.com/program http://www.kansasonlinelearning.org/kansasAbout.html http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rm3Hs4L94IE%3D&tabid=1646&mi d=10220 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0BJANZlOd3k%3d&tabid=455&mid =6785 http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gEKatfp UPM%3D&tabid=3429&mid=7866&forcedownload=true Kansas State Dept. http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vQyfSb4K6ig%3d&tabid=455 Kentucky Virtual School http://www.kyvs.org/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp http://www.kyvs.org/bbcswebdav/institution/About%20KVHS/KVHS_Q_%20A.pdf http://www.kyvs.org/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp Kentucky Virtual http://www.freedomkentucky.org/index.php?title=Kentucky_Virtual_Schools http://www.laurelsprings.com/aboutus/ Led Virtual http://lbfc.legis.state.pa .us/reports/2011/52.PDF Chapter 55 Idaho Digital http://www.legislature.i daho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH55SECT33 5504APrinterFriendly.htm Rules and Regulations for the http://soswy.state.w y.us/Rules/RULES/7210.pdf

PAGE 117

117 http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/arizona http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/illinois http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/k ansas http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/kentucky http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/maine Maryland http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/maryland Liberat http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/michigan http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/mississippi http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/missouri Liberatin http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/montana http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/new jersey http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/north carolina http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/north dakota http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/rhode island http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelea rn/home/south dakota http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/tennessee http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/texas http://sites.google.com/site/liberatelearn/home/vermont

PAGE 118

118 The Link, The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School 3, no. 1 (2007): 1. http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/ Louisiana Virtual School, http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?faq#9 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?faq#18 http://www.louisianavirtualschool.net/?lvsinfo Ma. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. MRSA §12004 G, sub §10 D. Ma. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. MSRA § 19152. http://mdk12online.org/ http://mdk12online.org/docs/MVSCourseDescriptions.pdf http://mdk12online.org/ Maryland Virtual Learning Opportun http://mdk12online.org/ http://massone.mass.edu/pdf/ about Default.html.pdf http://massone.mass.edu/about/ http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/ http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/news03/distance_learning.pdf Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 A: EDUCATION, §19152 Mich. Admin. Code §380.553a. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Online10.06_final_175750_7.pdf http://www.mivhs.org/Default.aspx?tabid=246

PAGE 119

119 http://www.mivhs.org/AboutUs/Accreditation/tabid/287/Default.aspx http://www.mivhs.org/Courses/tabid/56/Default.aspx http://www.mivhs.org/LinkCli ck.aspx?fileticket=T7F72BuzKFU%3d&tabid=185 Steven Mills. "Implementing Online Secondary Education: An Evaluation of a Virtual High School." Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1, no. (2003): 444 451. Minn. Stat., §124D.09. Minn. Stat., §124D. 095. http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Choice/documents/Publication/0 31 616.pdf http://www.mnlearningcommons.org/course searc h.php?action=search&icode=&cip=&schoolType=&enrollmentType=&credit Type=&sort=&page=25 http://mnlearningcommons.org/ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=124d.095 Miss. Code Ann. §37 161 3. 161 http://board.mde.k12.ms.us/June_2009/Tab%20M%20 %20IPS%20 %20VPS%20 %20Contract%20with%20Fulltime%20Online%20Teachers%20backup% 20b.pdf http://www.connectionsacademy.com/mississippi school/home.aspx M http://www.connectionsacademy.com/mississippi school/faqs.aspx qualize and Expand Educational http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_aa4992c0 b194 11df 8273 001cc4c002e0.html

PAGE 120

120 Missouri Virtual Instru http://www.movip.org/about_us/index.html http://www.movip.org/ Mo. Rev. Stat. § 161.670. Mo. Rev. Stat. §162 1250. Mont. Code Ann. §20 7 1201. http://montanadigitalacademy.org/faq http://www.montanadigitalacademy.org/mtda program http://www.montanadigitalacademy.org/documents/reports/MTDA2010Legislative Report.pdf http://montanadigitalacademy.org/program N.C. Gen. Stat. §105 134.6(d). N.C. Gen. Stat. §2006 66. N.D. Cent. Code §15 19. N.H. Code Admin R. Ann. Section §194 B:11. Neb. Rev. Stat. §79 1337. School Agreement. http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/08/12_virtual_school.html http://www.k12.co m/neva http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Assembly/ED/AED254L.pdf New Jersey Charter School http://www.njcharterschools.org/Statistics/DOEStatistics.aspx http://www.njvs.org/WhyChooseNJVSFAQs.aspx

PAGE 121

121 http://ideal nm.org/index.php/home/get document/document/NMCA%20Plan.pdf http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2011Meetings/January20 11/111p12d2.p df Online and Face to http://www.inacol.or g/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP BlendedLearning lr.pdf Based http://www.inacol.org/resear ch/docs/TAPBI.pdf http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/ http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/blended mobile learning/ http ://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/directors welcome/ http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/about us/history/ North Carolina Virtual Public http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/parents/homeprivate school/ https://www.ndcde.org/Home.aspx http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t15c19.pdf Northern Rhode Island Collabora http://www.nric ri.org/virtual learning academy http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/RR353.pdf https://www.ndcde.org/Home.asp x http://64.78.37.107/about/

PAGE 122

122 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3 &TopicRelationID=878&Content=100615 http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&T opicRelationID=879&Content=94438 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload http://www.k12.com/okva/how it works http://www.k12.com/okva/ http://www.oklahomavirtualhighschool.com/about.html http://oklahomavir tualhighschool.com/faq.html#howitworks http://www.onlineeducation.org/history online education Oregon State Legislature, Oregon Educational Act for the 21st http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/329.html http://www.k12.com/orva/ http://www.orvsd.org http://www.pacyber.org/about.jsp?p ageId=2161392240601301473074778. http://www.pavcsk12.org/Our_Community/ K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the http://www.sloan c.org/publications/survey/pdf/k 12_online_learning_2008.pdf School Fin ance http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/

PAGE 123

123 http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/892800 312/idaho_implements_online_high_school.html.csp http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/sites/default/files/2011 12%20Course%20Offerings%2010 25 11.pdf South Carolina Dept. of http://sccharter.org/documents/2011CharterApplication_1FINAL9 16 10%5B1%5D.pdf South Carolina Dep http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/site s/default/files/Press%20Release_Online%20le arning%20report%2011 17 09.pdf Education Chapter 16 South Carolina Virtual School http://scstatehouse.net/cod e/t59c016.htm http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/ http://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/index.php?q=mission http://www.sdvs.k12.sd.us/ South Dakota Virtual Sc http://www.sdvs.k12.sd.us/Students/Courses.aspx based Course for K 12 Students to http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/Web based_Courses.pdf http://publications.sreb.org/2009/SVSsurveyDE09B.pdf based Course for K 12 Students http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/Web based_Courses.pdf http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=6&name=DLFE 669.pdf

PAGE 124

124 http://www.eed.state.ak.us/news/releases/2010/ak_learning_network.pdf http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/06 201.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PA_123_and_124_159920_7.pdf http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0288.pdf on Finance Conference, Tampa, Florida, May 4 6, 2011). http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7918 STI Educ http://www.sti k12.com/press/infolive.pdf Sycamor http://www.sycamoretree.com/about_us.html http://www.connectionsacademy.com/texas houston school/home.aspx http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4840 &menu_id=2147483665 http://www.k12.com/txva/who we are http://www.txvsn.org/TxVSNFAQ.aspx David Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and David Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools, (White Plains, NY: Longman New York & London, 1994), 7. http://www.txvsn.org/ http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lea d/academic/advanced/report_pg23.html http://www.uccp.org/index.php/about us/ http://www.uccp.org/

PAGE 125

125 htt p://nebraska.edu/docs/features/virtual partnership/VirtualScholarsPilotProgram.pdf http://nebraska.edu/media resource center/features/1725 new nebraska virtual partnership will increase online learning opportunities for stud ents.html The University of Oklahoma Center for Independent and Distance Learning, http://ouhigh.ou.edu/overview.cfm http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/sp/view/sp/12 http://utaheducationfacts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1 24:onlinevirtual schools public&catid=56:school options&Itemid=65 http://www.schools.utah.gov/ehs/classes.htm http://www.schools.utah.gov/ehs/ Vermont Virtual Learning Co http://vtvlc.org/ https://docs.google.com/a/vtvlc.org/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srci d=0B5_g rLhQEwhY2YwY2M2ZGYtYWIyNi00MzQyLWE4NDctMjg5NzIzZGM2MmZm&hl= en&authkey=CLe7sbMO Virginia CQ Commerce Quarterly, 10, no. 1 (2005): 1. http://www.vlacs.org/index.php/about us http://www.vlacs.org/ http://www.vlacs.org/index.php/vlacs course catalog Virtual School http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/virtual schooling in the news 271/

PAGE 126

126 http://www.virtualvirginia.org/aboutus/index.html http://www.virtua lvirginia.org/faqs/index.html http://www.virtualvirginia.org/ Wash. Rev. Code §28A.250.RCW. Blending Learning: The Convergence of On line and Face to Face http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP BlendedLearning lr.pdf Learning and the West Virginia Virtual School http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2450.html http://wvde.state.wv.us/technology/ http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/imt/onlinevir.html Wisconsin State Le http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2007/data/acts/07act222.pdf http://www.wisconsinvirtualschool.org/ http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7334.pdf http://www.wyomingswitchboard.net/Courses.aspx http ://www.wyomingswitchboard.net/Home.aspx

PAGE 127

127 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr. Luke J. Stedrak completed his undergraduate degree at The Pe nnsylvania State University in s econ dary education, with minors in history and g eography. At West Virginia University he comp leted two m in both secondary e ducati on and e ducational l eadership. Dr. Stedrak also completed his Doctor of Education in educational leadership at the University of Florida. His current research interests are vir tual schools, public eleme ntary and secondary education funding models, and the use of developmental t echnolog y in the classroom