Describing the Types of Virtual Schools

Rachel Nachman
University of Maryland University College
EDTC650

Introduction
Due to the introduction and evolution of technology, virtual learning is becoming
increasingly popular throughout the United States. In fact, the number of students enrolled in an
online learning program is changing on such a consistent basis that statistics included in recently
published articles may be outdated or inaccurate (Wicks and Associates, 2010). Although the
quantitative data may continuously change, one thing is definitive virtual learning is on the rise
and does not seem to be disappearing anytime soon.
As virtual learning gains popularity, various types of virtual schools and programs are
being created. As illustrated in Wicks and Associates (2010) and Barbour & Reeves (2009), there
are differing views as to how virtual schools should be categorized. When describing virtual
schools, there are many components that can be identified and analyzed. This paper aims to
highlight the most helpful way to describe the different types of virtual schools.
Review of Existing Categories
Watson (as cited in Barbour et. al, 2009) identifies five different categories of virtual
schools. These include:
Statewide supplemental programs Virtual programs that are operated and
monitored through the state
District-level supplemental programs Virtual programs that are operated and
monitored through a specific district
Single-district cyber schools Virtual schools offered by a specific district and
serve as an alternative to a face-to-face school
Multi-district cyber schools Virtual schools that are operated through a specific
district; however, allow students from other districts to enroll

Cyber charters Virtual charter schools which are charted within a single
district; however, these schools also allow students from around the state
to

enroll. These schools also utilize commercialized curriculum.

According to Barbour et. al (2009), Watsons method of categorizing virtual schools is

commonly used. However, this method of classification is solely based on the agency that
operates and manages virtual schools. It does not take other factors into account such as method
of instruction delivery, types of programs offered, or types of students served. Thus, due to the
absence of many critical descriptive elements, Watsons method of categorizing virtual schools is
quite vague.
Wicks et. al (2010) identified ten different, specific defining dimensions of online
programs. These include:
Comprehensiveness The type of program offered by the school (either
individual courses or a full course load)
Reach The geographic range of students served (district-wide, state-wide, etc.)
Type Types of virtual schools including district, magnet, contract, charter,
private, and home
Location Where the virtual learning is taking place (home, school, or other)
Delivery Whether the instruction is taking place in real-time and at the same
time for all students, or whether the instruction is taking place at different
times

for each student

Operational Control The governing agency that operates and manages the
school

Type of Instruction Whether the instruction is taking place solely online or

through a combination of online and face-to-face classes
Grade Level The grade level(s) of students served
Teacher-Student Interaction The amount of interaction between the teacher
and student
Student-Student Interaction The amount of interaction among students enrolled
in the class or school
These ten dimensions provide a more specific look at the different components of virtual schools,
which the Watson method lacks. In essence, it would be possible to describe a virtual school by
referencing only one of the dimensions as many people do. However, this would also lead to a
lack of specificity. Thus, this poses an additional question should virtual schools be described
by referencing all ten of these components? Vanoureks diagram (as cited in Wicks et al.)
highlights all possible subcategories of each of the ten dimensions. If we were to consider every
subcategory, there would be 209,952 possible combinations of ways that we can classify virtual
schools. Therefore, this does not seem like the most logical way to describe virtual schools,
either.
A Helpful Way To Describe Virtual Schools
After reviewing the existing literature, I concluded that the most helpful way to
categorize virtual schools lies somewhere in the middle of the methods discussed above. I feel
that the description of virtual schools should be descriptive, yet not too specific as to create such
a narrow category. My proposal for the most helpful way to describe the different types of virtual
schools embodies the ideas referenced by Wicks et. al (2010) as well as Watson [as cited in

Barbour et. al (2009)]. I am proposing that virtual schools be described as a culmination of the
answer to each of the following questions:

Describing the Types of Virtual Schools

When describing the types of virtual schools, one should answer the following questions:
Scope of Program Offered

Does the virtual school offer a full, comprehensive educational program? Or, does the
virtual school only offer a select few individual courses that do not amount to a full
program of study?

Geographic Reach

What is the geographic reach of students that attend this school?

Content Delivery and Location

Is the instruction delivered asynchronously or synchronously?

Are students attending class solely via online means, or is a blended learning approach
being utilized?

Student Population

What grade level(s) does this virtual school serve?

Are students with special needs or who require remediation enrolled in this school?
o If so, is this a school solely for students with special needs? Or does this school
employ an inclusion model?

My proposed method for describing the type of virtual schools addresses five main components.
While there are numerous questions that should be answered, this description method is not as
general at Watsons, nor is it as specific as the method discussed in Wicks et. al (2010). By
answering the questions above, one is presented with a detailed look at a specific virtual school.
Description of Components and Rationale
According to Freeman (as cited in McFarlane, 2011), distance learning is:

An educational situation in which the instructor and students are separated by

time, location, or both, and it can be either synchronous (real-time,
instructor led
event in which all participants are virtually in class at the same
time) or
asynchronous (interaction between instructors and students
occurs intermittently
with a time delay) using a variety of distribution methods
including technology
(p. 85)
McFarlane (2011) defines virtual schools as schools that have no physical location and which
depend solely on computers and the Internet to facilitate the teaching and learning process or
deliver instructions and learning materials to students (p. 86). When choosing the five
components to address in my proposed description method, I used these two definitions to
identify the most unique features and aspects of virtual schools. Below, I provide a rationale of
why I chose these five components, as well as a description of these components.
Wicks et. al (2010) identified the comprehensiveness, or scope of programs offered by a
virtual school, as one of the most significant dimensions. Unlike traditional schools, virtual
schools do not need to serve as a full-time school; rather, they can simply deliver individual,
supplemental courses. However, on the contrary, there are some virtual schools that do offer full,
comprehensive programs of study. The scope of the programs offered by a virtual school is an
important characteristic of the school; as mentioned in Wicks et. al (2011), full-program virtual
schools must also address accountability measures, as well as provide students with a wellrounded, comprehensive education. Full-program schools also make learning more accessible for
those students who have external commitments, such as health issues or family obligations.
Additionally, supplemental programs can allow students to still have access to individual courses
that may not be available in their full-time school.
Geographic reach is the next component addressed in my description method. According
to McFarlanes (2011) definition of virtual schools, they have no physical location. Thus, in
essence, virtual schools can reach students all over the world. However, this is not to say that all

virtual schools enroll students from all over. When describing a virtual school, it is critical to
identify the students served. For example, do the students in the school solely belong to one
school district? Do they all live in the same state or even in the same country? According to
Wicks et. al (2011), one of the most important reasons to identify the geographic reach is because
of educational policy. Since educational standards differ from state to state, we must identify the
geographic location of the students enrolled in a virtual school.
Freeman (as cited in McFarlane, 2011) addresses the idea of asynchronous and
synchronous instruction. This instructional delivery is the next component I feel should be
considered when describing virtual schools. When instruction occurs synchronously, all students
(and the teacher) are online and engaging in the course at the same time. In essence, synchronous
instruction is quite similar to traditional face-to-face schooling; however, rather than everyone
being in the same physical classroom or location at the same time, they are all using the
technology and logged on to the course at the same time. Asynchronous delivery, however, is
different. In this model, the teacher and students do not necessarily need to be logged in at the
same time. Rather, the learning takes place at a time that is convenient for the student. Thus, not
all students are logged into the course at the same time. This method of instructional delivery is
quite flexible, and allows for students to work and learn at a pace that suits their needs. The
method in which instruction is delivered is a defining element of virtual schools, and is critical to
address when describing virtual schools.
Furthermore, when describing virtual schools, one should look at the location in which
the content is being delivered. Some virtual schools take place solely online; that is, students
never meet face-to-face and all of the learning is done via technology. However, virtual schools
can also adopt a blended learning approach, which is when there is a combination of face-to-face

instruction and online instruction. According to Wicks et. al (2011), a blended learning approach
is becoming increasingly popular among many virtual learning programs. In theory, a blended
learning approach contradicts McFarlanes definition of a virtual school. In his definition, he
states that virtual schools depend solely on computers and the Internet to facilitate the teaching
and learning process or deliver instructions and learning materials to students (p. 86); however,
with a blended learning approach, technology is not the only means of delivering instruction.
Because instructional delivery is clearly a crucial component of any school, it is important to
address the location in which instruction is taking place when describing a virtual school.
The last component addressed in my description method is student population. This
should not be confused with geographic reach when describing the student population, it is
important to consider the individual learning characteristics of the students. All students learn
differently, and thus, differentiated instruction is critical in an online learning environment.
While some virtual schools may serve students of varying ability levels, other schools may
specialize in a certain student population (such as students with disabilities, students who are
gifted and talented, and students who require remediation). According to Hashey & Stahl (2014),
schools that serve students with disabilities may differ in the resources they provide, or in the
way that students access these resources. It is important to describe a school in this aspect in
order to gain a better insight into the mission of the school as well as the resources and services it
offers.
Conclusion
It is evident that there are various ways to categorize virtual schools, and there may not
be one correct way to go about this categorization. When describing a virtual school, it is
important that the description not be too vague. Thus, my proposed description method

highlights what I consider to be the main components of virtual schools. When looking at a
virtual school through the lens of each component, we are provided with a detailed look at the
schools student population, instructional method, and content delivery.

References
Barbour, M., Reeves, T., (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the
literature. Computers and Education, 52, 402-416.
Hashey, A. I. & Stahl, S. (2014). Making online learning accessible for students with disabilities.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 70-78.
Matthew Wicks and Associates. (2010). National Primer on K-12 Online Learning. Washington
DC: iNacol.
McFarlane, D. A. (2011). Are there differences in the organizational structure and pedagogical
approach of virtual and brick-and-mortar schools? Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
3(2), 83-98.

Rubric

Criteria
Effective Introductory
Statement

Sources

Focus on Topic

100-90
89-80
The
The
introduction is
introduction
focused, well- states the main
developed and
topic and
states the main previews the
thesis with
structure of
precision, and the essay, but
clearly
the
previews the
introduction
structure of
may be a little
the essay.
vague in
places or may
only partially
address the
authors thesis
or purpose.
Student
Student
selected article
selected
is current and
article, but
scholarly.
may be older
than three
years.
All sources
used for
quotes and
All sources
facts are
used for
credible
quotes and
and cited
facts are
correctly using credible and
APA Style in- most are cited
text citations correctly using
and
APA Style inreferences.
text citations
and
references.
There is one
Main idea is
clear, wellclear but the
focused topic.
supporting
Main idea
information
stands out, is
may be
perceptive,
somewhat

79-70
<69
The
There is no
introduction
clear
states the main introduction of
topic, but does the main topic
not adequately or structure of
preview the
the paper.
purpose of the
essay or its
structure. It
may be
unclear.

Student
selected article
is not current
and are not
scholarly.
Most sources
used for
quotes and
facts are
credible and
cited
correctly using
APA Style intext citations
and
references.
Main idea is
somewhat
clear but there
is a need for
more
supporting

Student fails
to select an
article.

Total/100
/20

/20

Many sources
used for
quotes and
facts are less
than credible
(suspect)
and/or are not
cited correctly.

The main idea

is not clear.
There is a
seemingly
random
collection of

/20

Synthesis of Topic

Conclusion

and is
general or the
supported by
essay may be
clear,
more
convincing
descriptive
and detailed
than analytic
information.
in spots.
The writer
The writer
successfully
adequately
outlines forms, outlines forms,
models/types
models/types
of virtual
of virtual
schools.
schools.
However, key
items for
Responses
interpretation
include
may be
mention of
missing or
special
unclear.
There
populations
is a nod to
and are
special
categorized
populations,
logically.
but specifics
are lacking
Conclusion
Conclusion
successfully
packages the
packages the essay, but may
essay.
be missing key
details.

information.

information.

The writer is
outlines forms,
models/types
of virtual
schools, but at
a very base
level. There is
no nod, or
very little
mention of
special
populations.

The writer
fails to
successfully
outline forms,
models/types
of virtual
schools.

/20

Student writes
a conclusion
that fails to
summarize
and package
the essay.

The writer
fails to include
a concluding
paragraph.

/20

Total