Michael: It depends of what type of “choice initiative” the particular virtual school program represents.

The program described by my collegue “sburke443″ is a good example of “Democratic Choice.” It’s situated WITHIN a public school district in her state, and subject to the school district’s existing procedures and “regulations” governing credentials. PTR, accountability, and other important administrative and supervisory concerns.

If, on the other hand, the online program is a “Market Choice,” like many of the private-sector, FOR PROFIT charter school programs that many colleagues out there ARE JUSTIFIABLY AFRAID OF AND APPALLED BY, that’s a virtual horse of a different color! Christensen’s right in calling the unregulated, for-profit cyber charter schools disruptive.

Please don’t take my work for it! If anyone wants to read graphic illustrations showing why unregulated, for-profit cyber-charters are disruptive, please visit my Online Teaching and Learning Twine archive and have a look around for some of the “Critical” bits archived there.

http://www.twine.com/search?type=text=Online+Teaching+and+Learning

It not only contains “critical” bits. It also contains plenty of links to research and policy analysis that advocates for using online education as a lever for educational reform and improvement. (Especially the pieces written by me.)

BobBl

Michael: It depends of what type of “choice initiative” the particular virtual school program represents.

The program described by my collegue “sburke443″ is a good example of “Democratic Choice.” It’s situated WITHIN a public school district in her state, and subject to the school district’s existing procedures and “regulations” governing credentials. PTR, accountability, and other important administrative and supervisory concerns.

If, on the other hand, the online program is a “Market Choice,” like many of the private-sector, FOR PROFIT charter school programs that many colleagues out there ARE JUSTIFIABLY AFRAID OF AND APPALLED BY, that’s a virtual horse of a different color! Christensen’s right in calling the unregulated, for-profit cyber charter schools disruptive.

Please don’t take my work for it! If anyone wants to read graphic illustrations showing why unregulated, for-profit cyber-charters are disruptive, please visit my Online Teaching and Learning Twine archive and have a look around for some of the “Critical” bits archived there.

http://www.twine.com/search?type=text=Online+Teaching+and+Learning

It not only contains “critical” bits. It also contains plenty of links to research and policy analysis that advocates for using online education as a lever for educational reform and improvement. (Especially the pieces written by me.)

BobBl

Actually, the burden is on the offeror of the original and subsequent assertions here. My observations are based upon 1. my own experience with teaching the same class in both formats, 2. the responses from students within our discipline, and 3. the responses from faculty at our university. The overall pattern of those responses supports my observation, not the unsupported boosterism found in this article or these responses.

For the record, I am not threatened by online technology. Indeed, I use it regularly. I simply demand that when people make unsupported assertions about its ultimate utility, they be held accountable.

The reality is that some disciplines (such as humanities) do not lend themselves as well to online presentation as others (such as computer science). Moreover, the situations in which online approaches work vary with the student. Older students with life experience including time management skills who are physically far removed from the site might well benefit from having the opportunity to learn online otherwise denied them. On the other hand, hung over frat boys who take online courses because the conventional wisdom is that they’re easier and don’t require them to rise from their beds after party nights probably aren’t good bets. And universities who admit more students than they can physically house and force students into online courses used to absorb the excess are absolutely abusing the technology.

While I readily agree that online technologies can readily supplement F2F teaching, I have to insist that assertions that these approaches can be readily substituted for in-person classes be supported by evidence. That, I suspect, will be hard to find if anecdotal evidence from our university’s use of the same is any indication.

For the record, the assertion that “we do not seem to grow unless some innovation shakes us up and wakes us up” may or may not be true. Bear in mind, Plato, Shakespeare and Einstein did not require online classes to grow and become successful contributors to their societies. Again, the burden is on the offeror.

Actually, the burden is on the offeror of the original and subsequent assertions here. My observations are based upon 1. my own experience with teaching the same class in both formats, 2. the responses from students within our discipline, and 3. the responses from faculty at our university. The overall pattern of those responses supports my observation, not the unsupported boosterism found in this article or these responses.

For the record, I am not threatened by online technology. Indeed, I use it regularly. I simply demand that when people make unsupported assertions about its ultimate utility, they be held accountable.

The reality is that some disciplines (such as humanities) do not lend themselves as well to online presentation as others (such as computer science). Moreover, the situations in which online approaches work vary with the student. Older students with life experience including time management skills who are physically far removed from the site might well benefit from having the opportunity to learn online otherwise denied them. On the other hand, hung over frat boys who take online courses because the conventional wisdom is that they’re easier and don’t require them to rise from their beds after party nights probably aren’t good bets. And universities who admit more students than they can physically house and force students into online courses used to absorb the excess are absolutely abusing the technology.

While I readily agree that online technologies can readily supplement F2F teaching, I have to insist that assertions that these approaches can be readily substituted for in-person classes be supported by evidence. That, I suspect, will be hard to find if anecdotal evidence from our university’s use of the same is any indication.

For the record, the assertion that “we do not seem to grow unless some innovation shakes us up and wakes us up” may or may not be true. Bear in mind, Plato, Shakespeare and Einstein did not require online classes to grow and become successful contributors to their societies. Again, the burden is on the offeror.