Talk to Daja Washington today and it's hard to imagine that she often found herself in fights at Roosevelt High School during the 2013-14 school year.
Washington got in trouble a lot. And her schoolwork suffered for it.
But when she enrolled in St. Louis Public Schools' online education program to make up lost credits, everything changed.
"Now I get more help in classes and I'm able to achieve more," said Washington, a junior with college plans and a dream of opening a fashion store.
Stories like hers are what proponents of online education - also known as virtual schools - point to in touting its merits. Not every student learns the same way, advocates say, and providing options gives students a better chance to succeed, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1MdDb20) reported.
That's especially important, advocates say, in failing school districts such as Normandy and Riverview Gardens in St. Louis County. And that's why lawmakers included a virtual school option in a bill aimed at improving a largely unpopular statute that allows children in unaccredited school districts to transfer to higher-performing ones.
That bill is awaiting action from Gov. Jay Nixon, who has said only that he will study it carefully before deciding its fate.
Nixon vetoed a similar measure last year because it included a private, nonreligious school transfer option. This year's bill does not include the private school option.
But the new bill's virtual option is not without its detractors, who argue that a portion of the bill was hijacked by for-profit companies who provide the service.
"There are companies that don't want accountability" in the bill, said Constance Rush, director of legislative outreach for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Washington was one of nearly 1,400 students who participated in the city district's virtual program last school year. It operates under an existing state law that allows school districts to offer a part-time or full-time virtual education, provided it complies with state curriculum standards and teacher certification requirements.
The program began in August 2013 as an attempt to help students retake courses without falling behind or earn a high school diploma after dropping out. It expanded from there.
"Some students can't attend their neighborhood high school for different reasons, whether they were suspended or for safety," said Debbie Koon, Roosevelt High School's virtual academy facilitator. "Then we have students who cannot function in a regular setting whether because of anxiety or behavior disorders. (Online education) offers options."
The district offers both full-time and part-time course loads through its online program. Some do the work at home, while others come to district-designated areas with Internet access, Koon said.
Although the law allows virtual schools statewide, state education department officials say they are aware only of the St. Louis virtual program and a similar one at Kansas City Public Schools.
Currently, districts can purchase courses from an outside company, but student participants graduate with a diploma from their home districts.
Another online option, Missouri's virtual instruction program or MoVIP, is state-run. Funded at $5.2 million when it began in 2007, MoVIP will receive only about $590,000 for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Low funding has limited free tuition to students with medical needs.
About 500 students per year sign up for MoVIP, which costs about $4,000 for a full-time education, said Sarah Potter, department spokeswoman.
Ten school districts across the state are required to pay MoVIP tuition for interested students because those districts had a status of provisional or unaccredited on two consecutive Annual Performance Reports. Those districts include St. Louis, Ferguson-Florissant, Normandy, Riverview Gardens and University City.
Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, long an advocate for better education in the St. Louis region, was one of the most vocal proponents of virtual education in the last legislative session.
Online learning isn't for everyone, she said, but it can help children who struggle to learn in a classroom environment.
"I support more access to virtual education; I don't think we utilize it to the degree we should be," she said in February.
Though the virtual option of the measure changed drastically throughout the session, the end result would put parents in the proverbial driver's seat when it comes to which online program their children attend.
Under the measure, parents could enroll their child in an online school of their choice if the child has attended the following for one semester: any unaccredited school in the state; a school in an unaccredited district or provisionally accredited district; a school in a district mostly or completely located in Jackson County or St. Louis County; or a school in the St. Louis Public Schools.
Proponents don't expect the option to be widely used. The International Association for K-12 Online Learning estimates that only about 315,000 students nationwide attended full-time, online school last year. For comparison, there are about 900,000 students in Missouri alone.
Tuition for the virtual program - to be paid for by the student's home district - could not exceed the state adequacy target, now $6,131. Those courses must align with state curriculum standards and requirements for teacher certification.
Two examples of online program providers parents might be able to choose, K12 Inc. and Connections Academy, lobbied hard for the virtual option during the last legislative session. So hard, in fact, opponents of the measure allege that those entities wrote part of the bill.
An exchange between bill sponsor Rep. David Wood, R-Versailles, and Franc Flotron, the K12 lobbyist, hinted at such a connection. When Wood announced the final version of the measure would allow parents, rather than school districts, to decide on a virtual school company, he said Flotron was "more open to having parents make the choice."
Just before the Missouri House voted 84-73 to pass the school transfer bill last month, Rep. Bob Burns, D-Affton, gave an impassioned speech opposing the measure's virtual option.
"This is a special interest bill," Burns said. "This virtual education, why does it have to be a private company? Why couldn't the school system be in charge of virtual education?"
Other education officials and lawmakers alike questioned the measure's wording, fearing it lacked the teeth to hold for-profit virtual education programs accountable for a students' performance, given that the district wouldn't have the means of regulating which company is used.
"That means a highly skilled marketing virtual schools operator could come in and take market share and wipe out a school district just by recruiting," said Mike Jones, a member of the state Board of Education, at a recent board meeting. "You could give away cars, pizzas, Cardinals jackets - anything you have to do to gin up attendance. Then the school district has to write a check to a company in Florida or someplace no one has ever seen."
Studies suggest there may be legitimate reason for concern.
A 2012 National Education Policy Center study found that only 27.7 percent of K12's full-time virtual schools met federally mandated Adequate Yearly Progress goals in 2010-11. In comparison, 52 percent of public schools met those goals.
The study also found that students in K12's schools scored lower in math and reading, and that their graduation rate was only 49 percent. Public schools in the 24 states those virtual schools were located in had an average graduation rate of about 79 percent.
A Center for Public Education study documented similar results. A few studies the center examined showed online students outperforming those in typical brick-and-mortar programs, but most show lower test scores, graduate and completion rates among virtual students.
Nixon has until mid-July to act on all measures sent to him by the Legislature. If he vetoes the transfer bill, lawmakers likely will be in the same position they were in last year: unable to override the governor's veto with two-thirds majority in both chambers. The Senate passed the measure 23-11 - exactly enough votes to override Nixon - but the House's 84-73 vote is far shy of 109 needed.