A few weeks ago, we blogged about the two new virtual academies planning to open in fall 2012. While they were recruiting students and making plans for their first school year, opponents asked the Iowa Attorney General to review state law to ensure the legality of the virtual academies.

The Attorney General issued his opinion on March 12, 2012 that the online academies are permissible under state law. In the ruling, he noted:

“It could be argued that internet learning was not envisioned when the legislation was passed in 1987 and that the privatization of public elementary and secondary education is such a significant step that new legislation is necessary. While these are significant arguments, in our opinion they are outweighed by the clear and broad language of the authorization in the statute.”

The ruling also notes restrictions imposed by the statute: that the curriculum must be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher, and that the curriculum received at the remote site must be under the supervision of a licensed teacher, although the supervision at the remote site may be provided by the licensed teacher at the originating site.

The ruling addresses the fact that through Chapter 15 school districts are prohibited from using telecommunication as the only means of providing any course required for accreditation. This can be interpreted that a school district may not only provide a required course through telecommunications, but must also provide it through a different delivery method for students who do not wish to take it online. It could also be interpreted that a particular course may not only be delivered through telecommunications. The ruling expresses the concern that a course taught online must include all of the components of a traditional classroom course, and that for “open enrollment students the local school would not be able to assist in activities that would help to meet this requirement.”

As an increasing proportion of online and blended learning activity moves to the district level, we and other researchers are challenged by the fact that little data exists about district-level online and blended learning programs. In other categories of programs, data are generally more available because either 1) the schools are public schools that report data to the state (e.g., full-time online charter schools; or 2) the number of programs is limited so we are able to track many of them down and contact them directly (e.g., state virtual schools and large consortium programs).

The recent NCES report helped alleviate this data shortfall, but more work is needed in order to have a better sense for what is happening within districts in most states. Within this context, we are pleased to see the effort of the California Learning Resource Network (CLRN) in surveying schools across California. CLRN will launch the California eLearning Census March 1st to measure online learning’s growth and impact, including contacting all county offices, school districts, and direct-funded charters to request their participation.

The eLearning Census asks districts to count the number of students who are taking all of their courses online away from school, as well as those who are learning online at a school campus. It will also track those districts that have integrated online learning in their summer school programs, have utilized virtual courses in their Independent Study programs, and have blended online learning with traditional instruction.

Survey data will be published in Keeping Pace 2012, and we expect it to be used within California as well. Census data will help inform educators and policy makers about online learning’s trends and rapid proliferation in California. Evergreen is partnering with CLRN to assist with the census, although CLRN is doing much of the footwork. The California Technology Assistance Project will work with CLRN to notify districts as well.

We expect this effort to help California policymakers and educators better understand what is happening in their states, and hope to see similar efforts in other states as well.

California eLearning Census
http://www.clrn.org/census/

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.