You read that right. The student was allowed to attend the virtual school program, so long as she completed the coursework while she sat in a district school building.

For obvious reasons, requiring in-person attendance in a school building for a student to attend a virtual school is a slight inconvenience.

The family took the district to court. And, like all things in 2020, the case was impacted by COVID. The district sent all students home in the spring and changed the requirement to only 5 hours each week of in-person attendance the following fall. Partially as a result, the court ruled in favor of the school district.

Those in favor of allowing parents to choose the best educational option for their child were dismayed by the Independence School District’s actions. Should a school district be able to circumvent the very intent of the virtual education law by requiring attendance?

In response, legislators included changes to the virtual education law in HB 1552 of 2022 which were intended to make it easier for a student to enroll in a full-time virtual program. Previously, a district had to approve a student’s application to enroll in a virtual program. The changes to the law were supposed to remove the home district’s oversight of this process. These changes, however, appear to have been circumvented by new rules put out by DESE.

State Rep. Phil Christofanelli explains this in a recent letter to the Commissioner of Education:

While there were many important improvements in that bill, the primary reform was a full rewrite of the enrollment procedures for full time virtual schools, removing the resident district “gatekeeper” role that had been written into the previous law. The enrollment process for virtual schools (as opposed to supplemental courses) was completely revised so that the parent and the virtual school itself were placed in the lead and decision-making roles, while preserving an input role for the district of residence, if so desired.

The intent of the law, as Rep. Christofanelli explains, was to allow students to enroll in a full-time virtual program without the approval of the district. DESE’s rules leave the district in a position to approve or deny the student and parent’s wishes for a virtual education.

Christofanelli went on to say that “the end result” of DESE’s rules “is an enrollment process for full-time schools that works in the exact reverse order of what the Legislature intended and specifically wrote into law.” He concludes his letter with this: “Please let me know as soon as possible if DESE intends to revise this guidance to bring it into conformity with the new law, or if other steps will be necessary to see that the new law is given the effect of both its intent and clear language.”

It is not clear whether DESE will change their rules regarding the virtual education program or whether the legislature will once again have to take action to address this issue.

The post DESE’s Rulemaking Circumvents Intent of Virtual School Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This bill will broaden choices for Missouri parents in two ways. First, it fixes the funding glitch for charter school students in Kansas City and elsewhere. Because more families in Kansas City have chosen charter schools than traditional public schools, Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) doesn’t receive enough state funding to cover what’s owed to the charter schools. This bill fixes that by having the state make up the difference. It also ensures that charter school students have access to the same sources of local funding as students who choose their neighborhood school.

Secondly, this bill improves the way full-time virtual students in the Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP) are treated. And it ensures that schools and districts stay out of the way of families that choose this option for their children. Full-time virtual providers will now be considered their own attendance centers and report student test scores instead of being part of a local district.

Tens of thousands of Missouri families are already choosing charter schools and MOCAP. These children shouldn’t be treated as second-class citizens just because their assigned public school doesn’t work for them. Fortunately, the Missouri Legislature has agreed.

The post Better Late than Never appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter school funding – Current Missouri law requires districts to share their state aid with the public charter schools within their borders, based on the number of public school students who choose to attend charter schools. However, lawmakers didn’t anticipate what would happen if the number of public school students in charter schools was so high that a district’s state aid wasn’t enough to cover the charter school students, as is currently the case in Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS). Over half of the public school students in Kansas City have chosen charter schools, and the funding for those students equals the entirety of KCPS’ state aid and more. If more public school students choose charter schools, the pie will not get bigger. Rather, each public charter school student will receive a smaller slice of state aid from the district.

Secondly, under current law, public charter school students do not have access to the same sources of local funding as their counterparts attending a district public school. Local aid for non-charter public school students includes property taxes, merchants’ and manufacturers’ taxes, financial institution tax revenues, all city sales tax revenue, payments in lieu of taxes, and revenues from state-assessed railroad and utility taxes. HB 1552 would correct these imbalances by requiring that the state provide the difference between the amount available through a district’s funding and the amount charter school students are guaranteed to receive The state would make up the difference in funding.

MOCAP access – The Missouri Course Access Program, or MOCAP, became accessible to all Missouri public school students at no charge beginning in fall 2018. However, the legislation that made MOCAP available to Missouri families has several shortcomings. The first is that students must receive permission to attend MOCAP from their local superintendent. In far too many cases districts have refused, and students have had to sue to enroll in MOCAP. Second, funding for MOCAP students flows from the state, through the student’s local district (or charter school), and out to MOCAP. This establishes a slight financial disincentive to allow students to enroll, because it creates the perception that the district has to “pay” for the student’s virtual education. Finally, the state assessment scores of MOCAP students are incorporated into their local district’s (or charter school’s) test scores, which are used for accountability purposes and, in the case of charter schools, count toward charter renewal.

HB1552 addresses these shortcomings, but only for students who choose to be full-time virtual students, not students who just take a virtual class or two. Under HB1552, parents and students would be able to apply directly to full-time virtual providers, the test scores for full-time virtual providers would be considered as a separate school, and funding for full-time virtual providers would come directly from the state.

Students choosing to attend charter schools or enroll in MOCAP are public school students and should not be treated differently than their peers who attend their assigned public school. HB1552 would correct several shortcomings in the laws governing how these important educational options.

The post Shoring Up School Choice Laws appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The downward leg of the K is made up of several types of students, including those who were not able to quickly transition to a virtual education of even modest quality. These students probably sat out the end of the 2019–20 school year and at least part of the following one. Incredibly, as of summer 2021, nearly one-quarter of Missouri students still did not have access to high-speed internet.

The bottom leg also has students—as much as 3.5 percent of enrollment in Missouri—who simply didn’t show up for the 2020–21 school year. We’re not sure where they are or how they’re doing. Finally, we have many students who have simply struggled for the last year and lost critical time in their education—from kindergartners needing to launch, to third graders needing to read fluently, to high-school students heading out into college or careers. These same students are likely among the most disadvantaged to begin with.

Of course, there are many examples of students who thrived last year and are in the top leg of the K. They may have attended private schools that knew tuition-paying parents were not going to settle for online learning for very long. They may have been public school students who found virtual learning to be a great fit. They may be in families that realized how great the homeschool experience could be as kids can work at their own pace with no limits.

It goes without saying that policymakers in Missouri—both the legislature and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)—need to focus like a laser on the bottom leg of the K. We need high-quality diagnostic assessments that will honestly inform students and parents about any academic growth lost to the pandemic. Then, we need to make public funds available to families so that they can find the academic resources their children need, from tutoring, to part-time learning hubs or pods, to private schools. We need to empower parents and fund everything they need.

The post It’s not about the ABC’s—It’s about the K appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nationally, there are several indicators that learning remotely works for a lot of families. The number of homeschooled students doubled this year. An NPR/Ipsos poll found that nearly 30 percent of families were considering sticking with virtual learning next year. Another tracking poll found that 45 percent of parents want a virtual and in-person hybrid approach next year.

Missouri families who prefer virtual learning have the option of enrolling in the Missouri Course Access and Virtual School Program. But their assigned public school district has to cover their cost. It’s not surprising, therefore, that several school districts in the St. Louis region are going to continue their virtual programs for students who want them. One local superintendent was quoted as saying that extending virtual learning programs will “prevent” students from leaving for the statewide program. Not exactly—parents can still choose either. In fact, a poll of Missouri parents in December found that nearly a quarter graded their children’s remote learning experience as a “D” or an “F.” Regardless, districts are apparently feeling a little heat from the competition.

As the dust settles from the great COVID education disruption, we will discover more about how the experience affected families and learning. I suspect that traditional public school districts will be forced to recognize that the power shift from school administrators to parents is not going to reverse itself any time soon.

The post Some St. Louis School Districts Are Responding to Parents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the latest from Susan Pendergrass

Parents are angry and confused right now. Many are receiving mixed messages from school districts. Critical information arrives late in the process and changes frequently. It’s up to school districts and the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education to fix this. But that doesn’t seem likely to happen before school starts this fall—and parents need help right now. So we’ve created a resource page designed to help parents figure out what their options are and what sort of questions they ought to be asking. Of course, this is only a small subset of what is out there, but we hope you find the below information useful. Please feel free to share this with anyone you think might benefit.

Questions parents should be asking superintendents, school board members and legislators:

1. Can I have a portion of my child’s state funding to purchase in-person learning if my district isn’t offering it?
2. Will the district make teachers available for micro-schools for those who want and need them?
3. Could the district open some school buildings for students to do their virtual learning with an on-site teacher assisting?
4. What if I don’t have high-speed internet access? Hot spots were insufficient last spring.
5. I don’t like my school’s virtual education programming. Can I switch to MOCAP after the school year starts?
6. Why hasn’t the state waived the requirement for receiving district permission to enroll in MOCAP this year?
7. My child can’t attend school in person. Can I have state funds to enroll them in a high-quality virtual provider of my choice?
8. If I decide to have my child stay virtual, do I need to register as a homeschooler?

Options that may or may not be available for this school year:

Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP) – MOCAP has 11 providers of full-time virtual education that have been vetted and approved by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). A law passed in 2018 gives all Missouri students the right to request enrollment in any of the providers. Currently, districts are required to assess the request and determine if virtual education is a good fit for the student or not. Parents can appeal a denial of permission. Districts have an unlimited amount of time to respond to MOCAP enrollment requests.

UPDATE September 22, 2020 – 10 Day Deadline for MOCAP Review

Missouri Virtual Ed

Letter: Missouri online program virtual lifesaver for students

Missouri committee may propose changes to virtual education program

Missouri panel to request temporary removal of districts serving as MOCAP gatekeeper

Free virtual resources:

Khan Academy

NoRedInk

Virtual resources that cost money:

Virtual Stream tutors

Florida Virtual School

Micro-schools – A group of 10-15 multi-age students with one teacher. There are several national networks, but parents would have to work fast to create a micro-school at this point. Any that aren’t charter schools charge tuition.

What Is a Micro School? And Where Can You Find One? (edweek)

Acton Academies:

Acton Academy

Lighthouse International 

Prenda network:

Prenda

More on the Micro-school Movement (Forbes)

What are “micro-schools” and “pandemic pods”? (Today)

Why and How to Open a Microschool (gettingsmarter)

PODs – Groups of families that agree to have their children learn in-person together while limiting their access to anyone outside the group. These are being formed in Missouri, but with no public assistance.

Parents turn to “pods” as a schooling solution

YMCA of Metropolitan Columbus offering learning pods

College Station Taekwondo business offering learning pods

Kansas City YMCA

At least one parent has started a POD business

Watch: How to Start an Education Pod

“Little Pod Platoons” Are Education’s Answer to Lockdowns This Fall

“Pandemic Pods” Are Fundamentally Reshaping K-12 Education

Microschools on the rise in Arizona, with COVID providing added boost (AZ Mirror)

Parents Turn to “Pods” for School During Pandemic (WebMD)

Scholarships – Giving state money directly to parents to pay for tuition or tutoring. These are not available in Missouri, but could be. Each governor received flexible stimulus money under the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEERs) program. Governor Parson has received $54 million. So far, Governor Parson has allocated $24 million to higher education. The allocation of the remaining $30 million is unknown. Other governors have used portions of their GEERs funds to create scholarships for low-income students.

Oklahoma used GEER funding to create a scholarship that will help low-income families purchase curriculum content, tutoring services, and technology 

South Carolina used GEER funding to create SAFE Scholarships

Governors Direct Federal COVID-19 Aid to Private School Scholarships (EDweek)

The post Fall 2020 Educational Resources for Missouri Parents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Parents who work outside the home and just found out their schools will be all virtual this fall know what it feels like to need another option for their own children. Parents who bought expensive homes in top-notch school districts who just found out their district is staying virtual for the fall are quickly getting up to speed on not getting the education they thought they had locked in. Parents who are scraping together funds with their neighbors to hire a teacher for in-person teaching are finding out the meaning of having to pay for school choice. Parents of children who can’t participate in their district’s in-person or hybrid plan are discovering the obstacles of enrolling their children in a virtual program of their choice. Parents of special needs children who haven’t received services for their disability in six months are desperate for school choice.

The term “school choice” has been around for decades. But parents who were able to move to the school district of their choice have tended to struggle with the concept. Letting children from other districts enroll in their district could water down the value of the house they bought. Letting children use public money to attend private schools hurts public education. Charter schools are fine for inner city children, but we don’t need them in our “good” suburban school districts.

School choice isn’t just for other children in the 2020–21 school year. It’s a palpable need for scores of Missouri children across the spectrum of community type and socio-economic status. Any parent who wants “A” for their child but lives in a  district only willing or able to offer “B” this fall needs school choice. It doesn’t matter how good your school is or how expensive your home is.

Parents in our lowest-performing districts have always known this. The “B” that their districts offer is a low-quality and sometimes even dangerous education experience. The “A” that they want and need is a safe space for their children to thrive. I would urge all parents to remember this shared experience. To remember the feeling of finally learning how your district’s hybrid plan was to work, only to have it thrown out the window for all-virtual. Remember the frustration of receiving long emails from your district about their plan, only to read “this is all subject to change” at the end. Remember finding a micro-school option for one of your children, but not the other. Remember hoping your boss will understand.

School choice is simple. It means making sure that no parent is stuck with only one option when that option is unacceptable.

The post This Is School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s because parents want different things. Some are ready to send their kids back to school right now, and may really want or need a full-time in-person schedule instead of an alternating schedule. Clearly some parents want only virtual education—but for differing amounts of time. One in ten parents wants to wait out the whole year. The graph below, from a recent study by the American Enterprise Institute, reflects how parents are thinking differently about school reopening:

Hopefully, policymakers and education leaders in Missouri are hard at work trying to figure this out. One obvious move is to ensure that parents can easily enroll their children in the existing, approved virtual programs through the Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP). Requiring district permission to do so is ridiculous at this point.

A second immediate need is to let parents seek out and purchase the education that they’re comfortable with this fall. A Learn Safely Scholarship would give parents funds to spend on education resources, like private school tuition, as they see fit. Putting funds directly in the hands of parents would help fill the void in what districts are providing.

Parents have become front-line workers in public education, and many are exhausted and anxious from the experience. The time to figure out how to educate every Missouri student is now, not after we see the reopening fallout.

The post What Do Parents Want This Fall? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A scan of school districts across the state has revealed that, during the shutdown, far too many districts provided no coordinated or curated curriculum, and many of those that did simply distributed homework packets. Admittedly, shutting down every public school in Missouri was a massive shock to the system. Teachers were not prepared to completely change their approach to instruction. Many students and teachers lacked the necessary technology to make learning happen. Public education in Missouri has simply drifted into “hold harmless” territory—for teaching, for grades, for attendance, and for funding.

As school districts reopen this fall, parents need to be able to easily and seamlessly access options other than an in-person education at their child’s assigned public school (or whatever each school or teacher is able to provide for an alternate method of instruction). MOCAP has ten approved providers with full-scale virtual coursework already up and running. Any Missouri student who chooses should be able to directly enroll with any of these approved providers, and state funding for that student should directly follow them without going through the district first.

National surveys indicate that a significant percentage of parents plan to continue to have their child learn from home in the fall, which will actually help schools meet the conditions for reopening outlined by the Centers for Disease Control. There is absolutely no reason why Missouri parents should be forced to jump through an extra hoop during this time of crisis to obtain an education for their child.

The post Immediate Education Legislation Needed for Special Session appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Florida Virtual School (FLVS) has been serving public, private, and homeschooled students in the United States and abroad for decades. It recently increased its capacity to 2.7 million students. FLVS is geared up to serve all Florida students and is available to discuss options with out of state districts and schools. Similarly, the Uncommon Schools charter school network in New York quickly created a high-quality online learning option for its students. But it then went a step further and made the online option completely publicly available. That means any student with internet access can fully access a program created by a network with student proficiency rates at or near 100 percent. Sal Khan, creator of the Khan Academy, made his platform open and free as well.

Let’s cross our fingers that parents and students in some of Missouri’s shuttered districts—like Parkway, Joplin and the very low-performing Riverview Gardens—magically find these resources and use them. They will be doing so without their district’s guidance or support. And let’s think about whether Missouri public school students should be able to enroll in top notch programs in other states even after the pandemic. We now know that education can happen outside of public school buildings. The providers of high-quality education should reap the rewards of that effort, not the closest public school building to a child’s address.

The post Fingers Crossed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Missouri, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has not provided clear guidance to school districts beyond “schools should focus on whatever alternative methods of instruction best support students.” DESE’s COVID-19 information website focuses largely on calculating average daily attendance, school finances, and serving students with special needs. By contrast, the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) is requiring each district to create Continuous Learning Plans with minimum required minutes of instruction each day, based on grade level.

Local control is all well and good, except when it includes the local option of not teaching students at all. Some Missouri districts are advising schools and teachers that have already set up a virtual platform, like Microsoft Teams, to go ahead and use them. What about those that haven’t? Florida is offering $200 stipends to teachers who complete virtual instruction training. What is Missouri doing to equip all teachers?

It is undoubtedly overwhelming to millions of parents to become homeschoolers overnight. It is insufficient to simply point them to a webpage with “resources.” It is inequitable to have students whose teachers who were already leaning into the use of technology continue to receive instruction while others get little or none.

Next fall, when schools and teachers complain about how far students have fallen behind, we need to ask our public education leaders why we weren’t better prepared to serve all students in a crisis.

The post Parental Support in a Pandemic appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fortunately, the Missouri Senate Government Reform Committee seems to agree. Although it still has a ways to go, Senate Bill 996 has passed out of committee and will hopefully be considered by the full Senate soon. This bill changes the way funding works for full-time virtual education students. Rather than have state funding go to the students’ home school district and then back out to the virtual program, funding would simply go from the state to the virtual program. Makes sense, right?

Of course, the usual opponents showed up to testify against the bill. It was called an attempt to privatize education and make a profit from Missouri students. An opponent of the bill from the Missouri School Boards’ Association asked: “. . . who is making sure these providers are doing right by our students?” Well, that would be the parents of the students who choose full-time virtual education over their assigned public school. Recall that this is not a passive move—students aren’t assigned to full-time virtual schools. Rather, it is an active choice by these parents and students. When someone makes a choice that is outside the mainstream, it is usually a conscious and informed decision to find something that works for them.

For more than 95 percent of the public school students in Missouri, full-time virtual education is the only public option other than their assigned public school. In the two years since the Missouri legislature passed and the governor signed the bill making full-time virtual education possible, there have been numerous examples of bad behavior on the part of public school districts intended to prevent kids from entering full-time virtual programs. Far too many parents have had to lawyer up in order to exercise their legal right to this option for their children.

In 2020, conducting school, business, or personal obligations online is no longer novel or threatening. In fact, there are circumstances that have revealed it as a very necessary approach when in-person communication isn’t possible. Missouri public school districts and their school boards need to realize that the future of public education does not look like the past. Parents want options, and we should be willing to make sure they have them.

The post Not Your Kids, Not Your Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A few months ago, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) took the first steps to implement the virtual learning program. The newly mandated course access program offers options to students beyond their assigned public school and can provide a full-time virtual program for students.

But in July, a parent had to sue the Fulton School District so her three children could access an existing virtual learning curriculum known as Missouri Virtual Academy (MOVA). The judge ultimately ruled in favor of the parent, stating that DESE had to list MOVA as an authorized course access program provider because the plain language of the law required that MOVA be automatically approved. This was the first case when a family had to take legal action to access online courses.

You would think that after the Fulton case, the student in Warsaw R-IX should have had access to MOVA as well. But that’s not what happened.

The family in Warsaw R-IX had decided, after consulting with doctors, that a full-time virtual education would be best for their child for safety and educational purposes. The child was initially approved for course access, but the district rescinded the approval without following the proper protocol and despite no changes to the student’s circumstances.

The Warsaw R-IX district required MOVA to prove that it complies with state requirements. But that’s not what the law says, and DESE had already been ordered to list MOVA as an approved course provider. The district asked the family to choose either a part- or full-time traditional in-building class schedule for the student. The family was forced to hire a lawyer in response, and only then did the district allow the student to enroll in MOVA.

The virtual instruction program was intended to provide families with choices for their children’s education, and families want to use it. The first case in Fulton was troubling. The second case makes you wonder whether some Missouri public school districts simply oppose the legal right of parents to choose online classes and are willing to throw up roadblocks unless legally challenged. In these cases, whose interest is the district really serving?

The post Why Are Missouri School Districts Blocking Course Access? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

School choice in Missouri, therefore, has come to mean forcing schools to relinquish some of their assumed power over families. And it doesn’t come easily. A law that allows parents to choose a full or partial virtual education for their children has been implemented very begrudgingly in multiple school systems across the state. According to an approved virtual education provider, the excuses being given to parents who request their courses include: programs that were already approved don’t meet the school’s standards, signatures were missing on the application, and the district has its own virtual program (even though the law ensures that parents get to choose a provider). And this is just a sample of the excuses given; there are many others. In some cases, the denial of access to the virtual education program conflicted with medical advice from the child’s doctors.

It’s time to flip the script. The public education establishment does not, and should not, grant power to parents. Parents grant power to their child’s school.  Yet, when one alternative becomes available, parents have grabbed hold of it only to have their hands slapped. A system that spends more than $11 billion each year to achieve mediocre results does not know better than parents. The demand for more options is only going to grow and the design of the system needs to change as a result.

The post Flipping the Script on School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This means that students in rural schools without a wide course selection could take any AP course. Students with irregular schedules—possibly because they’re intensely committed to a sport—could take some classes in a building and some online. Bullied students could choose to take their entire courseload online. Parents who want to homeschool, but aren’t comfortable doing it themselves, would get assistance. In other words, it means giving parents options that they want and need.

But the devil, in this case, is in the implementation. I’d heard rumors that districts weren’t complying with the law’s requirement that they make the availability of this option clear on their websites. I’d heard that Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was interpreting the law’s requirement that the program launch in fall 2018 as a requirement to begin looking into curriculum providers in 2018.

But now, what concerned me most has happened. A parent has had to sue their child’s district to get access to the program. The parents wanted to choose an existing virtual program, known as MOVA, provided by the Grandview R-2 district. Their home district, Fulton, denied the request because they don’t use curricula from other districts. They haven’t even gone through the process of determining if it’s in the child’s best interest, as required by the law. They just gave them a flat “no.”

Survey after survey tells us that parents, especially young parents, want more choice regarding their children’s education. The powers that be may be able to deny them for a little while, as is happening in the Fulton Public School District. But parents can be a powerful force, and that approach won’t work forever.

The post Mission (not) Accomplished appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We know that it can be challenging for small communities to find Calculus, Physics, or AP teachers for their high schools. But we also know that there are bright and talented students all across the state who deserve, at the very least, the opportunity to take the courses required to apply to the University of Missouri. The legislature has cleared the way for students and parents to be able to sit down with their school counselor, figure out what classes they need, and seamlessly register to take those courses either in the building or online.

Students will also be able to enroll in MoVIP as full-time virtual students. This can be a game-changer for rural students, students who are being bullied, and for others who want options beyond their assigned public school. Providing more options for students and parents is essential to making sure that all Missouri students can reach their potential, and course access is one way to do that.

Researchers and analysts at the Show-Me Institute have traveled to Jefferson City multiple times to provide testimony on this important issue. We’ve included it in our legislative Blueprint for the last two sessions, we’ve written blog posts and essays, we’ve talked about it on the radio, and we’ve produced a video on why Missouri students deserve to have their school districts provide free access to courses that the districts are unable or unwilling to offer. It is truly a victory for Missouri families that course access is so close to being a reality.

Of course, good policy requires good implementation. The new law requires every school district and charter school to inform parents and students of their new rights under this legislation, including adding it to all registration documents and home pages. In addition, the legislation has guardrails in place to make sure that students’ progress is monitored and that they are on track with the coursework. Both of these safeguards are critical to the success of this legislation.

If this law becomes final, we will follow the progress on the implementation closely to make sure that it gets done and done right. We will also help let Missouri families know that their education choices have been expanded. But we won’t stop working to give parents even more options – from education savings accounts to charter schools in any district. For now, though, it’s time to recognize a job well done by the Missouri legislature.

The post Finally, a Victory for Parents and Students in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The kicker here is that this is not an isolated incident — all unaccredited districts and districts with provisional accreditation for two years are required to pay for these courses for their students. Unfortunately, few districts make this readily known. What is more, all school districts have the option to offer MOVIP courses to their students.

As Show-Me policy analysts have noted (here and here), virtual education has tremendous potential to improve and broaden the quality of education for Missouri students. Schools should be lining up to partner with MOVIP.

Imagine a classroom full of students on computers, each taking a different virtual course. One student is making up English I, which he previously failed, while another is taking a course on web design. Other students are taking foreign language courses that the school could not offer, perhaps Chinese, German, Japanese, or Latin.

We are in a tremendous age, where technology is transforming how we operate in our daily lives. Now, technology has the potential to change how we educate our students. By partnering with MOVIP, schools can expand options for students. More students in Kansas City — or even Appleton City — should enjoy greater educational options. It is time we demand more.

The post Virtual Education, Real Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As innovation continues to change the way we work and communicate, forms of virtual education are beginning to take hold in Missouri and elsewhere. Virtual education has been shown to reduce the costs of educating public school children, increase course diversity, and help students graduate.

The post Virtual Blended With Traditional Learning Can Cut Costs And Help Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A better education reform strategy, according to education experts Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is to allow free competition among schools for students. Such competition would allow schools that provide a quality education to flourish while punishing schools that provide a poor education.

A review of all available empirical studies of school voucher programs — a school choice policy that allows students to take public dollars with them to schools that they choose — found that the majority of studies showed that voucher programs improved student outcomes and public schools. Unfortunately, education vouchers are not a viable option in Missouri because they might violate the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment.

Increased choice frequently produces cost savings. In Washington D.C., for example, charter school students are outperforming traditional public schools while operating at a per-pupil cost of $11,000, compared to the $17,000 per-pupil expenditure of traditional public schools. Options are limited in Missouri because state law restricts the creation of charter schools to the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City.

Furthermore, Missouri has many rural areas without a critical mass of students to support the infrastructure of multiple schools. In fact, two-thirds of Missouri’s school districts have fewer than 1,000 students.

For students whose educational choices are limited by geography, restrictive laws, financial constraints, or some combination of the three, a new approach is necessary to give them the benefits of educational competition and course diversity. Virtual schools and distance learning can offer these benefits to nearly all of Missouri’s students.

Related Links

The post Virtual Learning: Beyond Brick and Mortar appeared first on Show-Me Institute.