One touted purpose of virtual schools is to expand learning opportunities for students, but in reality, virtual schooling may not be readily available to all students. This study analyzes inequitable access to Ohio's virtual schooling by examining disaggregated student enrollment data. Similar to past research, our study revealed that racial minorities and students with limited English proficiency were underrepresented in Ohio's virtual schools in comparison to traditional schools. However, unlike past studies, our study found economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities to be overrepresented in Ohio's virtual schools. The findings are explained through policy and legal lenses, and potential legal issues are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990; as amended 2008).
2.
AnthonyJ., & PadmanabhanS. (2010). Digital divide and equity in education: A Rawlsian analysis.Journal of Information Technology Case & Application Research,12(4), 37–62.
3.
BarbourM. K., & ReevesT. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature.Computers & Education,52(2), 402–416.
4.
BarbourM. K., & SikoJ. P. (2012). Virtual schooling through the eyes of an at-risk student: A case study.European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning,15(1). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=462
BathonJ. (2011). Model legislation related to online learning opportunities for students in public elementary and secondary education schools.Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/NEPC-VirtSchool-2-LB-Bathon.pdf
7.
BradyK., UmpsteadR., & EckesS. (2010). Unchartered territory: The current legal landscape of public cyber charter schools.Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,2, 191–274.
8.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
9.
CavanaughC. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.
10.
Central Dauphin School District v. Founding Coalition of the Infinity Charter School, 847 A.2d 195 (Pa. 2004).
11.
ChenX., & KaufmanP. (1997). Risk and resilience: The effects of dropping out of school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Educational Research, Chicago.
12.
City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).
ClarkT., & BergeZ. L. (2005). Perspectives on virtual schools. In BergeZ. L., & ClarkT. (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 9–19). New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
CrawfordC. (2005). Towards digital equity within the learning environment: Overcoming the digital divide through openly accessible Internet-based tool.International Journal of Learning,12(5), 61–70.
18.
DeckerJ., EckesS., & PluckerJ. (2010). Charter schools designed for gifted and talented students: Legal and policy issues and considerations.Education Law Reporter259(1), 1–18.
FriendB., & JohnstonS. (2005). Florida virtual school: A choice for all students. In BergeZ. L., & ClarkT. (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 97–117). New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
GorskiP. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology.Urban Education,44(3), 348–364.
24.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
25.
HaugheyM., & MuirheadW. (1999). On-line learning: Best practices for Alberta school jurisdictions.Edmonton, Canada: Government of Alberta.
26.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Massachusetts Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976).
34.
MillerR. C. (2008). Validity, construction, and application of statute or regulation governing charter schools.American Law Reports,78, 533.
35.
MironG., & UrschelJ. L. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time virtual schools: A study of student characteristics, school finance, and school performance in schools operated by K12 Inc. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/nepcrbk12miron.pdf
Office of Educational Technology. (2012). Understanding the implications of online learning for educational productivity.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ctl.sri.com/news/ImplicationsOnlineLearning2.pdf
PapeL., AdamsR., & RibeiroC. (2005). The virtual school: Collaboration and online professional development. In BergeZ. L., & ClarkT. (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 118–132). New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
45.
PerryT., SteeleC, & HilliardA.III (2004). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students.Boston: Beacon Press.
PriceH. E. (2010). Does No Child Left Behind really capture school quality? Evidence from an urban school district.Educational Policy,24(5), 779–814.
48.
QueenB., & LewisL. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009-10 (NCES No. 2012-008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012008.pdf
SchoonoverJ., & FeistC. (2007). Using computers to design accessible learning environments.School System Special Interest Section quarterly,14(1), 1–4.
52.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2000).
53.
SolomonG., AllenN, & RestaP. (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
54.
ThomasS. B., Cambron-McCabeN. H., & McCarthyM. M. (2009). Public school law: Teachers’ and students’ rights.Boston: Pearson.
55.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (2007).
WatsonJ., MurinA., VashawL., GeminB., & RappC. (2011). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/reports/
