Keeping Pace with K-12 Online and Blended Learning:A Guide to Policy and Practice 2013 (10th Edition)
• John Watson, Evergreen Education Group• Amy Murin, Evergreen Education Group
November 2013
Contact Information
John Watson – [email protected] Murin – [email protected]
Evergreen Education Group
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 ThumanScottsdale 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
KEEPING PACE CATEGORIES• Single-district programs
• Blended schools• Multi-district FT online
• State-supported Supplemental• Private / Independent
Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? May 2013
Fully Blended SchoolsHow 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.
States with Fully Blended Schools
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 *
2013 : 29 states : 310,000 studentsLost Virginia, redefined Hawaii
Contiguous counties
Grades 3-12 only
1 school,3,000 Ss
3% of Ssper district
Statewide cap of .018 %
(900) of all Ss
Initial enrollment limited to 1,500 Ss. Min. of 75% in-district Ss. No school shall exceed 5,000 Ss. Restrictions lifted or schools closed based on school perf.
1 school, limited
# schools, # students per
school
2% Ss statewide, <5% in-district Ss, <10 schools
Types of restrictions
# of students
Out-of-district
# of schools
Michigan
New Hampshire, Arkansas
Tenn.
OregonMass.
Iowa
Other -Texas: Grades 3-12
California: Contiguous counties
State-supported Supplemental Options
SVS 2013 : 27 states, 742,728 enrollmentsLost Connecticut and Louisiana in SY13-14
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, where2. 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.
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.
States with Course Choice Programs
State Year Started # Enrolls Key Notes
Arizona 2009-10Grades K-12
Data not available
State authorizes providers; 74 in SY 2013-14Funding is prorated based on % of ADM
Florida 2002, 2009-10Grades K-12
428,315 enrollments
All districts must make PT + FT options available to all K-12 studentsFunding based on completion
Georgia 2012-13Grades 9-12
25,877 enrollments
Georgia Virtual School is only provider$250 / student / course + appropriation
Louisiana 2013-14Grades 9-12
New State authorizes providers; 45 in SY 2013-14Funding based on appropriation + grants
Michigan 2013-14Grades 5-12
New Up to 2 courses from MVS or statewide catalog80% funding w/enrollment, 20% on completion
Minnesota 2003-04Grades K-12
9,933 enrollments
State authorizes providers; 27 in SY 2013-1488% of proportional ADM to provider; can be based on seat time or completion
Utah 2011-12Grades 9-12
1,279 enrollments
State authorizes providers50% funding w/enrollment, 50% on completion
Course Choice Program Details
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.
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
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
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 state-
supported supplemental options
Key Policy Issues
• Online learning requirements• MOOCs
States with Online Learning Requirements
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
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?
What educational goal are you trying to meet?
Planning for Quality: Questions and Timelines
Traditional Time
Additional tasks for Time-Shift Program
End Goals for Each Program
Contact Information
John Watson – [email protected] Murin – [email protected]
Evergreen Education Group