Clark, T., Barbour, M. K., Bacsich, P., Ebert, J., Powell, A., & Ferdig, R. (2012, October). North American and international online and blended learning: What can programs learn from each other? A panel presentation at the annual Virtual School Symposium, New Orleans, LA. This panel session takes an international look at key policy and practice issues that need to be addressed in K-12 online and blended education. What can North American educators learn from international programs, which are mainly blended? Conversely, international K-12 educators want to know, what can we learn from North American programs, which are mainly online? The moderators asked chapter authors from around the world to help them respond to these questions through a forthcoming book.

1. North American & International
Online & Blended Learning
What Can Programs Learn
from Each Other?
Virtual School Symposium 2012
10/22/2012 1

2. Agenda
• Introductions
• Join Us Online
• Overview
• Panelist Presentations
• Interactive Panel Dialogue
• Interactive Q & A
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 2

3. Introductions
• Moderators
• Tom Clark, TA Consulting
• Michael Barbour, Wayne State
University (via Skype)
• Panelists
• Paul Bacsich, Sero Consulting
• Jhone Ebert, Clark County School
District
• Recuperating (here in spirit)
• Rick Ferdig, Wayne State University
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 3

4. Visit our Panel’s Online Page
Respond to VSS email re “Virtual School
Symposium 2012 Community”
If already active, sign in at:
http://vss2012.inacol.pathable.com
• Click on Schedule –>Monday Oct 22->
10:00 AM -> “and 7 more” -> “What can
North American and International…”
• Start a conversation, or add to one
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 4

5. Overview
• What are some similarities and
differences in online and blended
learning programs in North America
and other areas of the world?
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 5

6. 2011 iNACOL Study
• 54 nations responded
to 2011 survey by
iNACOL /Atlas
Economic Research
Foundation
• 65% of responding
nations said that
online learning (OLL)
or blended learning
(BL) opportunities
were available to at
least some students
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 6

7. 2011 iNACOL Study
• Challenges identified include
sporadic interest in OLL, and
a general lack of tech
access, funding and
governmental vision &
leadership
• Wide variety of levels of
activity/access
• Mozambique: 1% have Internet
access; 12% have electricity;
50% illiterate. Little OLL/BL.
• China: 200+ online public
schools enroll 600,000 +
students
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 7

8. International Trends/Issues (vs N. Am.)
• Trend 1: Blended & online choices most avail. to
students in urban areas of developed countries
• Intl: Less than half indicated availability to students in rural
or suburban settings or small schools.
• N Am: Online choices are available in all areas -
rural, urban, suburban; blended ops in a variety of school
districts
• Trend 2: Growth in digital learning stems from shared
authority between local schools & national govts
• Intl: Schools in many countries have a high level of
autonomy in developing & promoting OLL/BL. Less than
25% had national quality standards for online
• N. Am: School authority primarily by state/province, with
districts deciding about participation; growth varies widely
across states/provinces.
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 8

9. International Trends/Issues (vs N. Am.)
• Trend 3: Specialized teacher training is not
required, but is encouraged and available
• Intl: When countries fund OLL/BL, few require specific
license/credential (11%) or training (25%). 72% reporting
OLL/BL reported PD was available for teachers
• N. Am: Six U. S. states (12%) offered voluntary credential
in 2011; WI, NC require PD. PD generally is available.
• Trend 4: Blended learning is occurring with much
greater frequency than online learning
• Intl: Most use of eLearning tools supports in-class
activities. Little learning exclusively online. Mostly BL.
• N.Am: Program growth is mainly in district-led
programs, which are often OLL/BL.
• Trend 5: Online learning mainly for special or
extenuating circumstances (not so much in N. Am)
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 9

10. International Trends/Issues (vs N. Am.)
• Issue 1: No clearly defined international
understanding of online learning
• Intl: OLL is thought to mean any integration of ICTs.
Growth reported as OLL was mainly in BL. Challenge -
Lack of knowledge of OLL as a method.
• N. Am: Online learning (OLL) is understood as education
via Internet where teacher is remote from student.
• Issue 2: The lack of equitable access to the
Internet, technology tools, and resources for online
learning
• Intl: Many countries report a widening digital divide. Lack of
electricity, tech infrastructure, and illiteracy prevent access.
• N. Am: Digital divide is less. Budget cuts/regulatory issues
restrict access, access issues vary by state/province.
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 10

11. International Trends/Issues (vs N. Am.)
• Issue 3: A lack of government funding or policies
to promote online learning vs. traditional schools
• Intl: Funding limited. Most initiatives focus on tech
integration, not OLL. Sporadic interest in OLL.
• N. Am: More funding, but varies by state/province.
Decreased federal funding. Policies vary widely.
• Issue 4: The need to focus on teacher training and
teacher roles
• Intl: lack of focus on teacher training; limited training on
new teacher roles in OLL/BL.
• N.Am: Some focus on OLL/BL teacher training and new
roles in many states/provinces.
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 11

12. Panelist Presentations
• Presentations about OLL/BL practice
and policy in their part of the world
• Special Questions of Interest:
• What are some program practices and
policies that appear relevant across
states, provinces and nations?
• What can North American and
International educators learn from each
other?
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 12

13. Paul Bacsich, VISCED project
EUROPE – IS DIFFERENT!
10/22/2012 13

14. Europe
• Funded under EU LLP KA3 ICT
• Circa US$0.5m funding
• January 2011 to December 2012
• Sero is project manager & scientific lead
• Leverages on Re.ViCa (on virtual unis)
• Leads to POERUP (on OER)
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 14

15. Europe – the numbers
• Europe in our sense includes not
only the EU but the countries in
geographic Europe including all
Russia and Turkey, and Caucasus
• Around 70 virtual schools identified
• Likely to be over 100
• However, most countries have only
one or two
• Main exceptions are
UK, Spain, Finland and Sweden
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 15

16. Europe: Key differences 1-4
1. Most activity is blended – ministries
thought (or hoped) that there were
no virtual schools (any more)
2. Virtual schools are mainly small
(few hundred)
3. Much larger focus on expatriates
and disadvantaged/ill
(homeschooling is often illegal)
4. Virtual schools are less regulated
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 16

17. Europe: Key differences 5-9
5. Systems are more “classroom” in
focus – not nec. “synchronous”
6. Often can draw on minimal
linguistic resources ( < 3m often)
7. Virtual schools are more
entrepreneurial, even state ones
8. Virtual schools for adult credit
recovery is a big driver, in some
countries (UK, Spain, some Nordic)
9. More(?) interpenetration of virtual
schools and virtual colleges (UK…)
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 17

18. Europe: Policy constraints
• Some European countries are federal
(UK, Germany, Spain)
• Some (UK) even have zero pan-country
ministry role (cf Canada)
• “Rights of the Child” issue inhibits
homeschooling – thus(?) virtual
schooling
• Focus on nation-building/socialisation
• Most ministries not interested: “we
thought they had gone”
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 18

19. Finesse: at EU level
Virtual schools are key to various EU
initiatives:
• STEM and other shortage subjects
• Travelling and other excluded
communities
• Broadband uptake and open education
But issues with:
• No EU right to acceptable level and
choice of education EU-wide (islands…)
• No Bologna for schools credit transfer
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 19

20. Supporting the
21st Century
Learner
Jhone Ebert
Chief Technology Officer
Clark County School District

21. Clark County School District
The District employs 37,115 employees 2012-2013 General fund
including full-time, part-time, substitute, and operating budget
temporary employees $2.062 billion
2012-2013 enrollment Student Population
1.50% 0.50%
311,429 students Hispanic/Latino
6.00%
Caucasian
6.60% CCSD is the
357 schools Black/African American
5th
• 217 Elementary schools Largest
12.00% 44.00%
• 59 Middle schools Asian
School
• 49 High schools Multiracial District in
• 24 Alternative schools the Nation.
29.40%
• 8 Special schools Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
Native American

22. Challenges
 Too few islands of excellence
 Achievement gaps are too great
 Reserved expectations of excellence
Strategies
 Embrace transparency
 Welcome criticism
 Partner with critical friends

23. Focus for Action
 Harness breakthrough innovation and
redefine how schooling is accomplished.
 Fully tap the potential of a new model of
schooling.
 Align resources to our highest priorities
and execute with precision.
 Continue to do what works and stop
doing what does not.

24. CCSD Technology
105,000 computers supported with an All schools and sites are
average child to one computer ration of 4.9. interconnected via a 2.5
Gb/s internet service.
Over 150 million email messages
are delivered each year; spam filters
caught 300 million spam messages last Over 19,000 data switches
year.
Approximately 120,000
6,000 business process jobs data ports
are processed monthly.
There are over 33,000 telephones Over 12,400
Wi-Fi
on the CCSD telephone network, with
access points are
over 69,000,000 calls processed installed in CCSD schools.
per year.

25. Nevada Legislation
Flexible Credit Legislation
 Credit by Exam NRS 389.171
 Distance/Alternative Ed: Alternative
Scheduling NAC 387.193 & NAC 387.195
 Credit for Community Service NRS 388.165
Other Flexible Legislation
 Academic Plan Requirements
NRS 388.165 & NRS 388.205

26. Nevada Virtual Schools
Nevada Dept. of Ed.
approves all online programs
20 approved programs
 13 District Online Programs
 7 Online Charter Schools

27. CCSD Virtual HS
http://ccsdde.net
 2004 first graduation
 Full catalog of courses
 172 Full-time currently
 12,000+ enrollments
in 2011-12
 State-wide
350 non-CCSD
students in 2011-12

28. Blended & Online Learning in CCSD
 100,00 students blended/online by 2015
 Shiftingthe K-12 learning environment from
the present arrangement to one that is
instead almost entirely composed of
blended or full-time virtual learning

29. Teacher Certification Program
Tier Approach http://pde.ccsd.net
 Tier I – Foundation
Philosophy and Pedagogy
 Tier II – Emphasis
Tools and practices
Spring 2012
 5 courses
 State-wide
 700 + credits issued
Fall 2012
 9 courses
 300+ enrollees

30. Lessons Learned
 Authoring verse Buying Curriculum
costs and alignment
 LearningManagement System (LMS) and
Student Information System (SIS)
systems integration
 Teacher Training
pedagogy and tools
 Technology Infrastructure

31. Our Charge
“All our efforts have one purpose.
It is to ensure all students are ready by exit.”
― Superintendent Dwight D. Jones

32. Virtual Learning Network
VLN Primary
Te Kura
Several tertiary's
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 32

33. Common Obstacles
• Funding and resources
• Lack of vision
• Lack of consistency between
clusters
• Lack of co-operation
• inter-cluster
• intra-cluster
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 33

34. Pockets of Innovation
• Changing teacher practice
• Opening classrooms
• Mentor teacher
• Considering student learning space
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 34

35. 10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 35

36. Interactive Dialogue
• What can North American and
International educators learn from
each other?
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 36

37. Q& A
• What questions do you have for our
panelists?
• What policies or practices would you
like to share?
• What are you interested in learning
about International & North American
programs?
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 37

38. Thank You!
Moderators
Moderators
Tom Clark tom@taconsulting.net
Michael Barbour (Skype) mkbarbour@gmail.com
Panelists
Allison Powell[
Paul Bacsich paul.bacsich@sero.co.uk
Jhone Ebert jhone@interact.ccsd.net
10/22/2012 North American & International Programs 38