Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Online Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates offering district-managed online academy as enrollment and funding choice
Summary
Administrators told the board roughly 30 district students chose online options in 18 months; the board discussed a proposal to partner with Indiana Online Academy (students remain enrolled locally) that would reduce state funding to 85% per virtual student but could recoup revenue if students re-enroll; administration will return with a formal proposal next month.
Eastern Pulaski Community School Corporation administrators presented a preliminary proposal to offer middle‑ and high‑school students an online option using a regional virtual provider, prompting extended board discussion about funding, academic integrity and athletics.
At the meeting, the district administrator (identified in the meeting as Mrs. Chisum) said the district’s current average daily membership (ADM) is 1,008, down from 1,031 in the spring. She reported that about 30 students in the last 18 months have chosen an external online option. Under the model described, students would remain enrolled with the district, register at the high school, and could graduate with a district diploma while taking courses provided by Indiana Online Academy through a regional education service center. Administration said the district would receive 85% of the state per‑student funding for virtual students. This year’s per‑student state funding was cited as $7,453, which at 85% would be $6,319.
Administrators described provider costs that vary with scale (roughly $2,100–$2,600 per student) and estimated, if the district could re‑enroll the 30 students who left for online options, a net recoup of approximately $120,000 annually after paying course fees. The presentation emphasized that the provider offers middle‑ and high‑school courses, some dual‑credit options, and monitoring/early interventions; required statewide tests would still be administered in district facilities and results would be reported on district accountability measures.
Board members asked detailed operational questions: who would monitor student engagement and grades, whether virtual students would be eligible for athletics and how class rank and valedictorian status would be handled, and whether hands‑on programs (welding, nursing) or dual‑credit pathways could be delivered online. Administrators said the vendor provides first‑line outreach for students who fall behind and that the district would retain responsibility for testing, graduation rates and any policy decisions about extracurricular eligibility. Several board members suggested treating virtual participation similarly to existing homeschool or athletic‑eligibility policies (for example, requiring a minimum number of in‑district courses for sports participation).
Several members voiced caution. One board member said they were uncomfortable with a valedictorian who had never attended campus; others warned that broad adoption across surrounding districts could reduce revenue if all districts collected only 85% of funding for virtual students. Proponents argued the district would retain contact with students who otherwise disappear into external programs and that a district‑managed option could prevent permanent loss of students and funding.
Administration said it could bring a formal proposal back at the next board meeting (anticipated next month) and that implementation could move quickly if the board approves. The board asked administration to include details on athletic eligibility, class‑rank consequences, testing logistics, contract terms (including enrollment windows and withdrawal penalties), and projected budget impacts in the forthcoming proposal.
Next steps: the administration will draft a detailed recommendation and timeline addressing the board’s questions and proposed guardrails; no final policy or contract was adopted at this meeting.
