This iNACOL webinar took place on November 13, 2013 and featured John Watson and Amy Murin discussing the findings from the Keeping Pace Report. Download the free report here: http://kpk12.com/
Food Chain and Food Web (Ecosystem) EVS, B. Pharmacy 1st Year, Sem-II
iNACOL Webinar: Keeping Pace with Blended and Online Learning
1. Keeping Pace with K-12
Online and Blended Learning:
A Guide to Policy and
th Edition)
Practice 2013 (10
• John Watson, Evergreen Education Group
• Amy Murin, Evergreen Education Group
November 2013
5. Program Advisory Board
• Suzanne Falkenstein
Athenian Schools
• Lynn Torres
Lufkin ISD (TX)
• Kimberly Loomis
Clark County School District
• James H. Hardman
Crown Point Community
School Corporation (IN)
• Kevin Croghan
Denver Public Schools
• Greg Ottinger
San Diego County Office of
Education
• Chris Thuman
Scottsdale Unified School
District
• Robert Cole
Howard County Public
School System (MD)
• Richard Frank
Metropolitan Nashville
Public Schools (TN)
• Frank Goodrich
Minneapolis Public Schools
• David Haglund
Riverside Unified School
District
8. Fully Blended Schools
How Keeping Pace defines fully blended
schools:
• A stand-alone school w/ a school code.
• Much of the curriculum is delivered
online.
• Attendance is required at a physical
site during the school year for more
than just state assessments.
10. Single District Programs
•
•
•
•
•
Riverside Unified School District
Metro Nashville Public Schools
Clark County School District
Washington DC Public Schools
Minneapolis Public Schools
* Blended courses * Fully online option *
*Supplemental online courses * Teacher
professional development * BYOD / 1:1 programs *
11. 2013 : 29 states : 310,000 students
Lost Virginia, redefined Hawaii
12. 3% of Ss
per district
Statewide cap
of .018 %
(900) of all Ss
# schools,
# students per
school
1 school,
limited
2% Ss
statewide,
<5% indistrict Ss,
<10 schools
Contiguous
counties
Grades
3-12 only
1 school,
3,000 Ss
Initial enrollment
limited to 1,500 Ss.
Min. of 75% indistrict Ss. No
school shall exceed
5,000 Ss.
Restrictions lifted
or schools closed
based on school
perf.
13. Types of restrictions
# of students
New
Hampshire,
Arkansas
Michigan
# of
schools
Mass.
Tenn.
Other Texas:
Grades 3-12
California:
Contiguous
counties
Iowa
Oregon
Out-ofdistrict
15. SVS 2013 : 27 states, 742,728 enrollments
Lost Connecticut and Louisiana in SY13-14
16. Course choice
Keeping Pace defines a course choice program as
one that allows:
1. Students to choose to take a course from one or
more providers, where
2. A district cannot deny a student’s request to
enroll in an out-of-district course, and
3. Funding follows the student at the course level.
17. Course choice
Keeping Pace defines a course choice program as:
1. Students can choose to take a course from one
or more providers,
2. A district cannot deny a student’s request to
enroll in an out-of-district course, and
3. Funding follows the student at the course level.
19. Course Choice Program Details
State
Year Started
# Enrolls
Key Notes
Arizona
2009-10
Grades K-12
Data not
available
State authorizes providers; 74 in SY 2013-14
Funding is prorated based on % of ADM
Florida
2002, 2009-10 428,315
Grades K-12
enrollments
All districts must make PT + FT options available to
all K-12 students
Funding based on completion
Georgia
2012-13
Grades 9-12
25,877
enrollments
Georgia Virtual School is only provider
$250 / student / course + appropriation
Louisiana
2013-14
Grades 9-12
New
State authorizes providers; 45 in SY 2013-14
Funding based on appropriation + grants
Michigan
2013-14
Grades 5-12
New
Up to 2 courses from MVS or statewide catalog
80% funding w/enrollment, 20% on completion
Minnesota
2003-04
Grades K-12
9,933
enrollments
State authorizes providers; 27 in SY 2013-14
88% of proportional ADM to provider; can be
based on seat time or completion
Utah
2011-12
Grades 9-12
1,279
enrollments
State authorizes providers
50% funding w/enrollment, 50% on completion
20. Close but not quite . . .
• Oklahoma: Final determination and selection of the
provider(s) is left to the discretion of the local district.
• Texas: Restrictions. Districts and charter schools . . .
– Are not required to pay for more than 3 year-long courses
each year,
– may deny access to courses if the district or charter school
offers a substantially similar course, and
– have the final say over which course provider a student
chooses.
• Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming: Legislation is not in
place to support a student’s right to choose at the
course level, although there are mechanisms for
students to split their course loads among multiple
providers.
21. Private / Independent Schools:
Why no history of online /blended?
• Perceived lack of need until recently
• Many public online programs evolved from
distance education; that is not the case with
private / independent schools
• Private / independent schools known for
“high-touch” environment, which is not
consistent with the perception of online
22. Private / Independent Schools:
Why now?
• National Association of Independent Schools
identifying growing number of online &
blended programs in its report, “Stories of
Excellence: Case Studies of Exemplary Blended
and Fully Online Learning”
• OESIS Conference
• Way to cut costs
23. What states allow private students to take
state-supported supplemental courses?
• Yes, 8 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah
• No, 21 states
• The other 21 states do not have statesupported supplemental options
27. MOOCs in K-12
• K-12 Teaching in the 21st Century
– Michigan Virtual University & Kent State University
– In-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and high
school students interested in teaching as a profession
• ilearnOhio has authorized 14 MOOCs created by
Coursera; students apply for FlexCredit
• AP Computer Science MOOC designed by Amplify
being piloted in districts around the country
• Florida legislation directing DOE to figure out how
to authorize MOOCs for credit in the future
28. MOOCs in K-12
The Promise: Reasonable or free access to a
wide variety of online courses designed by top
faculty around the world.
• Challenge: How will credit be issued?
• Challenge: How will courses be funded
(development and participation)?
• Challenge: Will providers be held to quality
and accountability standards?
1st-ever program advisory board to help us keep an eye to what is happening on the ground in schools and districts around the country
Keeping Pace looks at 7 different program types including fully online schools, supplemental online course providers, and blended learning providers. However, what we are starting to see more and more each year is the increase in the number and variety of blended learning providers merging into all of these worlds.
310,000 students in 30 states in SY 2012-13We counted about 295,000, but know that some programs aren’t in our counts (single-district, California could be an undercount) Largest number of students in Arizona (42,000), although that is a unique student count that includes some part-time studentsNext largest number in California, although that is an estimate. Largest number we can trust? Ohio with 38,519 and Pennsylvania with 34,69429 states in SY 2013-14We changed our classification of Hawaii from fully online to fully blendedVirginia’s one school is no longer statewide; focused on two districts, and out-of-district must pay an enrollment fee9 of those states operate with restrictions
Arkansas: 1 school, limited to 3,000 studentsCalifornia: Schools limited to serving students in contiguous countiesIowa .018 % (approximately 900) student cap statewide for full-time schools; no more than 1% from any one district. Mass. No more than 2% of students statewide in virtual schools. At least 5% of students from sponsoring district. 10 virtual schools max. Michigan SB619 (2012) limited number of cyber charters and their enrollments. New Hampshire1 school; enrollment limited by appropriation.Oregon 3% cap on the number of students in virtual schools from each district. Tennessee Initial enrollment limited to 1,500; never more than 5,000. No more than 25% of a virtual school’s students may come from outside the LEA. Restrictions are lifted or schools closed based on school performance. TexasTxVSN Online Schools serves grades 3-12.For good measure: Virginia is no longer statewide
Many of the restrictions fall into one of three categories: # of students: this could be limited by percent of state student population, % of students from any district, or simply by budget# of schools: some states limit the number of virtual schools allowed to operate in the state, or to serve students statewideOut-of-district: In an effort to prevent schools from “making money” on out-of-district students, some states limit the number of out-of-district enrollments, or mandate a minimum number of in-district students.
Amy
State virtual schools742,728 course enrollments in SVS in 27 states in SY 2012-13 Connecticut and Louisiana closed at the end of the school yearOperating in 25 states in SY 2013-14FLVS by far the largest with 410,962 course enrollments
Course choice programs7 states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah4 of these also have SVS (FL, GA, MI, UT)Many other states in the ‘close but not quite’ categoryAZ: enrollment data not available
One enrollment = one student enrolled in one semester-long supplemental courseWhile we work to maintain neutrality about the positivity / negativity of particular options for students, we do believe that any option that results in more choices for students is at its core a good thing. However, how that plays out in legislation and then on the ground is critical toward understanding the potential effect on students and student performance.
First time covered in Keeping Pace1st private school sponsor, private school representative on Program Advisory Board
Note that many of the policy details mentioned in the preceding and upcoming slides are detailed in a snapshot that leads each profile
As of September 2013, 4 states require students to complete an online course to graduate (Alabama, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia) 2 more (North Carolina and Arkansas) are in the process of implementing a requirement4 more states (Georgia, West Virginia, New Mexico, Massachusetts) encourage but don’t require it
the first thing we do with a school district – before we even sign a contract – is to ask them what educational goal they are trying to solve.