2012 is shaping up to be another active year for online and blended learning policy changes. Iowa has a state virtual school and other supplemental options, but for the first time it appears K-12 students are likely to have access to full-time online learning beginning in fall 2012:

-          Clayton Ridge School District plans to serve students in grades K-6 at Iowa Virtual Academy in partnership with K12 Inc. It will gradually expand to include middle and high school grades.

-          CAM (Camanche Community) School District plans to serve students in grades K-12 at Iowa Connections Academy in partnership with Connections Education.

These schools are not opening as charter schools, but rather as “buildings with districts.” Iowa is an open enrollment state; any student in Iowa may apply to these academies by the open enrollment deadline of March 1.

While the schools are actively enrolling students and planning to open, there is some concern that the laws do not allow for a full-time online education. Senator Tom Courtney wrote a letter to the state Attorney General that was published in the Des Moines Register on February 10 raising these concerns, referencing the Iowa Administrative Code for the Education Department, which states the following in Chapter 15:

281—15.4(256) Course eligibility. Telecommunications may be employed as a means to deliver any course, including a course required for accreditation by the department, provided it is not the exclusive means of instructional delivery. [emphasis added]

The Attorney General has announced that it intends to issue an opinion on the legality of the online schools.

In addition, Iowa’s Governor has made a number of recommendations related to education, including increasing funding to $1.8M for each of the next three years for Iowa Learning Online (ILO), the state virtual school. ILO reported 574 course enrollments in 2010-11. While this was an increase of 8% from 2009-10 (see Iowa’s Keeping Pace profile for more details), it still represents a tiny percentage of Iowa’s student population. Increased funding would presumably lead to additional opportunities for students across the state to access supplemental online courses. In Iowa, 151,800 students (1/3 of the state total) attend a rural school, which typically offer a smaller catalog of courses than larger schools.

It appears likely Iowa students will have more education options next fall; we will keep you updated on both of these issues.

We are generally supportive of education reform efforts, many of which are found in charter schools and other non-traditional schools within the public education system. We also recognize, however, that the role of innovators within the non-charter public education system is critically important. Online schools, charter schools, non-traditional schools, and other efforts that are outside mainstream education are clearly important to the students who attend these schools. But they also have a role that may in fact affect many more students, by creating examples and competitive pressures for other public schools.

These innovators who work within the system are often overlooked. In Keeping Pace and other outlets we have discussed, for example, the importance of state virtual schools as key providers of online courses in many states. These schools are often run by the state education agency, although they sometimes operate as private non-profit organizations. They often are caught between traditional educators and education reformers. The former wonder if the state virtual schools are “taking” revenue, while the latter see the state virtual schools as too closely tied to the education establishment. In our opinion, both views are misguided and state virtual schools are a vital part of the landscape.

Similarly, innovators within districts face a landscape that appears not to know what to think of them. They sometimes draw suspicion from their public sector colleagues, while also not receiving accolades from reform advocates. The middle ground appears to be a lonely place.

It’s in this context that we are cautiously optimistic about the California student bill of rights initiative. Initiative backers note a report from UCLA that one million California students attend schools that do not offer sufficient courses for admission into University of California schools, and suggest that a remedy is a change in policy to make courses—including online –available to students who do not have access to those necessary courses. The lack of equal access to courses necessary for admission to the UC system has been recognized in the past (it was the impetus for the University of California College Prep project, which has lost funding and did not achieve its promise), but has not been solved and has in some ways fallen below the radar in a state besieged by deep budget deficits and deeper political divisions.

What’s perhaps most notable about the initiative is its source: it comes from a group of educators who are mostly from the “innovative from within” category. Dave Haglund, who is responsible for non-traditional schools as director of educational options for the Riverside Unified School District, is among the leaders involved. Others who contributed to the drafting of the initiative included district and county superintendents, faculty from higher education (including public, private, and for profit colleges), and business executives. These leaders recognize the scale of the problem, realize that the California legislature has not been able to change the policy landscape in any meaningful way, and understand that changes implemented by the legislature, in a state with the gridlock of California, are likely to be incremental.

It’s not clear to us what all of the implications of the initiative would be if it passed. We know of pockets of innovation across California—in San Diego, Orange County, and elsewhere in addition to Riverside—but it is also clear that millions of students in California don’t have access to the same opportunities that more fortunate students have. We hope that the initiative gains the signatures it needs to be placed on the ballot in November. One thing is for sure – the initiative has definitely changed the conversation in California.

For more information:

The initiative URL: http://educationforward.org

Michael Horn’s view on the initiative: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/01/03/california-initiative-brings-breath-of-fresh-air/

The Fordham Institute is publishing a series of working papers on “Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning;” its most recent release, “The Costs of Online Learning,” is a valuable contribution to an area of online and blended learning that has been very lacking in good research and analysis.

The authors interviewed 50 entrepreneurs, policy experts, and school leaders to understand the various costs associated with traditional, blended, and virtual education. They identified three reasons why schools or districts pursue online learning:

1. To reduce overall costs
2. To increase the range of course offerings
3. To use technology to rethink the traditional teaching and learning model

The primary motivation for pursuing an online or blended learning program will affect the costs. Programs pursuing online learning for cost savings will likely spend less than programs primarily concerned with rethinking the traditional teaching and learning model, however, spending more does not necessarily guarantee outcomes. The authors note, “The cost estimates reflect the current variation in the field. They are not a guarantee of quality, given insufficient data on student outcomes associated with the range of models.”

The authors determined that a traditional school costs an average of $10,000 per pupil, a blended learning model costs an average of $8,900 per pupil, and a fully virtual model $6,400 per pupil. The blended models vary by +/-15%, and the virtual models vary by +/-20%, not accounting for outliers in either direction. Significant variances in costs for a particular program may depend on existing technological infrastructure, content acquisition, labor costs, and professional development, among many other factors.

We are concerned that policymakers will focus on what appear to be the bottom line numbers (such as blended models leading to savings of 11% compared to traditional schools) without acknowledging the numerous caveats that appear throughout the paper, demonstrating that there is considerable variance in costs of different schools and various instructional models. In addition, the authors note, “For existing schools, the time and costs required to transition to the use of technology as anything but an “add on” are often too difficult.”

A careless reading of the report will lead some policymakers and educators to believe that online and blended should be pursued with cost-savings goals front and center. A closer reading reveals that such an approach will overlook the need for an initial investment of time and resources, leading to poor outcomes. The risk is that some people will believe “we tried online (blended) and it didn’t work well,” when in fact the effort will have been poorly implemented and unlikely to succeed from the start.

In March of last year, Keeping Pace was one of many voices in the K-12 online world to raise questions around an outdated military policy that included online high school graduates with correspondence school graduates when determining military eligibility. The original policy was designed to limit the number of recruits from correspondence schools, as the military’s research had shown them to be less likely to finish their term of service than students from traditional schools.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Obama on 12/31/11, updates the policy in section 532. The new policy states that all secondary school graduates shall be treated equally for purposes of recruitment and enlistment, as long as the graduate receives a diploma from a legally operating school that is in compliance with state laws.

Additionally, it requests the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a new recruitment and enlistment policy within 180 days to determine who are qualified for recruitment and enlistment—suggesting perhaps based on aptitude or personality assessments—as well as using data to analyze the success rates of different types of recruits.

This updated policy not only opens the door for virtual school graduates to receive equal consideration in the military recruiting process, but puts a framework in place for reviewing outcomes to learn from successes and failures. We have been discussing quality and accountability extensively lately, and have suggested a shift to determining quality based on outcomes. If the Department of Defense implements a procedure to do just that, the education world could learn some lessons.

The new policy:

SEC. 532. POLICY ON MILITARY RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF GRADUATES OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

(a) EQUAL TREATMENT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADUATES.—

(1) EQUAL TREATMENT.—For the purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the Armed Forces, the Secretary of a military department shall treat a graduate described in paragraph (2)  in the same manner as a graduate of a secondary school (as defined in section 9101(38) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(38)).

(2) COVERED GRADUATES.—Paragraph (1) applies with respect to person who—

(A) receives a diploma from a secondary school that is legally operating; or

(B) otherwise completes a program of secondary education in compliance with the education laws of the State in which the person resides.

(b) POLICY ON RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT.—Not later than  180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary  of Defense shall prescribe a policy on recruitment and enlistment that incorporates the following: H. R. 1540—107

(1) Means for identifying persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are qualified for recruitment and enlistment in the Armed Forces, which may include the use of a non-cognitive aptitude test, adaptive personality assessment, or other operational attrition screening tool to predict performance, behaviors, and attitudes of potential recruits that influence attrition  and the ability to adapt to a regimented life in the Armed  Forces.

(2) Means for assessing how qualified persons fulfill their enlistment obligation.

(3) Means for maintaining data, by each diploma source, which can be used to analyze attrition rates among qualified persons.

(c) RECRUITMENT PLAN.—As part of the policy required by subsection (b), the Secretary of each of the military departments shall develop a recruitment plan that includes a marketing strategy for targeting various segments of potential recruits with all types of secondary education credentials.

(d) COMMUNICATION PLAN.—The Secretary of each of the military departments shall develop a communication plan to ensure that the policy and recruitment plan are understood by military recruiters.

2010 and 2011 were busy years for online learning in state legislatures around the country. In response to media requests we compiled a list of major recent online learning legislation, and after doing so thought it valuable enough to share on the blog. These policy changes are described in detail in Keeping Pace in each state profile.

1. Florida CS / CS / HB7197 (2011) mandates that all districts offer a full-time online option to students in PK-12; allows statewide virtual charters; allows FLVS to offer a full-time online option.
2. Idaho SB1184 (2011) dramatically expands student choice around online courses.
3. Indiana HB1002 (2011) allows for online schools outside the previously limited pilot program.
4. Iowa House File 645 (2011) allows for regional academies that can offer online schools.
5. Maine LD1553 (2011) allows for virtual charter schools.
6. Maryland HB1362 (2010) authorizes districts to establish virtual schools.
7. Massachusetts 603 CMR 1.00 (2010) allows for virtual innovation schools, including online schools.
8. Nevada AB233 (2011) allows schools to grant independent study credits without seat-time.
9. New Mexico SB427 (2011) allows students in failing schools to choose online options paid for by the school district.
10. Ohio HB153 (2011) lifts the moratorium on online eschools and provides significant guidance.
11. Oregon HB2301 (2011) allows up to 3% of students that reside in a district to enroll in an online charter school without district permission.
12. Tennessee HB1030 (2011) allows for full-time online schools.
13. Utah SB65 (2011) expands student options and allows for multiple providers.
14. Virginia SB738 (2010) allows multi-district providers to serve students in grades K-12.
15. Washington ESHB2065 (2011) changes funding for alternative learning experiences.
16. Wisconsin AB40 (2011) removes the cap on virtual charter enrollments.

In addition to this list, some states passed general education bills that would also affect online learning – for example the teacher evaluation legislation in Wisconsin.

This is a large number of bills, many of which had a significant impact on a large number of students. We are concerned that in some states the legislation is reactionary, and pieced together quickly in response to misinformation or a lack of information. That is not the case in all states, and we certainly see examples of legislation modeled on existing policy or that is thoughtfully developed in response to a specific state’s situation, that will have a positive impact on students.