I just finished putting the finishing touches on my slide deck for the second presentation I am doing at the Minnesota Online Educators Association Conference on February 18th. I am presenting two sessions that day, one in the morning on "The Real Disruptive Innovation" and the other in the afternoon on "New Additions to the Digital Backpack." I figure after lunch people won't be hungry enough for the fruit further up on the tree so an online tool smackdown is appropriate.
Last year I presented a session at this conference on my favorite tools in the Digital Backpack that have potential to enhance online instruction titled, "Cloud Computing: Survey of Online Applications for Education." So this session is not necessarily the best tools but new ones that I've come across since this time last year. I introduced Seymour last year as a virtual co-presenter when I gave this presentation. Seymour is a pompus and demeaning know-it-all superhero who really thinks he knows more than he really does. I created Seymour in Xtranormal and used Vuvox to build the presentation, both tools I wanted to share in that presentation.
I took the same approach to this year's toolscravaganza session using Jog the Web to build my slide deck and eTrade babies to help me co-present on this topic. I figured this would fit well since the babies and the tools would be roughly the same age. If you are interested in seeing my slide deck for this presentation visit:
I'll be presenting two sessions later this month (February 18th) at the Minnesota Online Educator's Association (MNOLA) conference. One of them is a session I call "The Real Disruptive Innovation" which questions whether Clayton Christensen, Mike Horn, and Curtis Johnson are right in their assessment that the disruptive innovation in education is individualized instruction. Or rather, whether it is the individualization done by the teacher or that done by the student through choice that is innovative and disruptive. I hope in this presentation to raise questions and spark discussion weaving in ideas of the theory of disruptive innovation in schools, the purpose of school, and how to build community and capitalize on student interests.
Here is my slide deck for this talk:
So, if families and students are not choosing online schooling for individualized learning, what are they choosing online schools for?
If the purpose a family or student chooses your school is something other than individualized instruction, should the school work to address this/these reasons?
If a student is choosing online schooling so they can let other interests take priority over school, how do you as a teacher draw upon those other priorities to improve the quality of that student's schooling?
What do you think? I would love to share your input at my presentation.
I work part time for an online k-12 school. I also often teach graduate school courses in online or blended format. I have no problem with online schools, I think they are a great option to have but the phrase "online learning" has never really set well with me even though I have often used it.
What bothers me about "online learning" is strictly a nit picky issue. Is learning really different online than off? How does the cognitive act of learning differ for the self online as opposed face-to-face or self-guided with non-connected stimuli? I doubt it's difference is very significant yet we use the term "online learning" to describe something supposedly very different than what happens in other learning environments.
Pay emphasis to the content (online content), environment (online learning environment), the institution (online school), or anything else that really is different but I really do not think we have sufficient ground to claim that the act of learning is significantly different enough when online to use the phrase if we are refering to the learning of an individual.
However, if we take this term and consider how it might be more accurately used we end up with it describing some form of artificial intelligence. If this is what we mean by "online learning" that by connecting people, content, and sensory input devices together in a way where some kind of collective intelligence is emerging (as in the theory of Connectivism) or by some miracle a new life emerges out of these connections then the term "online learning" has a sufficient meaning. However, this is not how it is usually used. In fact I rarely hear people use the phrase to describe what I have just proposed. Instead, "online learning" is usually used as a misplaced synonym for "online schooling." I suspect the common use of the term stems from a general misconception that schooling and education are the same thing and that schooling is necessarily about learning. That is the ideal and it is what we should strive for but the reality is that they are different. Therefore, I have to add "online learning" to my list of words I am beginning to have a real problem with.
This morning I listened to Kim Ross, principal of Minnesota's first online high school, give a keynote speech to a group of educators in Southeast Minnesota. I can't say that he said anything that we have not heard before. It was a good talk about how the world is changing and about how online education allows for teachers to individualize instruction and focus more on relationships with their students. He gave a general overview of the theory of disruptive innovation in education and drew special attention to how this individualization of instruction made possible by online learning was the disruptive force, not the technology.
In the past few years schools have been looking at online education as a major disruptive force. We have seen exponential growth in enrollment in online schools and as a result a lot of our traditional brick and mortars have seen a decline. It has been widely thought, and I must confess that for a long time I have counted myself among those holding this belief, that schools need to modify their programs to draw upon what is happening in online education to improve what they do and make instruction more individualized. In answer to this we have seen a slew of measures taken by traditional school systems in an attempt to capitalize on this theory and retain students. Many schools have tried offering their own online courses, others have invested heavily in technologies like interactive whiteboards with the thought that if only they made the presentation of class theatrics more visually appealing students would be more engaged, and other schools have experimented with hybrid courses which are primarily online courses augmented with periodic face to face meetings.
None of these solutions ever really felt right to me but I have only recently been able to make enough sense of what I have been thinking to articulate it. Perhaps the rise in enrollment in online schools has very little to do with the quality of education they offer and more to do with declining relevance of schools in general. I have noticed and I have spoken with many teachers who have observed that in the past few years student motivation to meet deadlines, to attain a good grade, and to complete all of their work has been on the decline. What worked to motivate students to "achieve" five years ago isn't working today for a large percentage of our students. "Its like they don't care if they pass my class."
What has changed in the past five years? What are kids doing today that they were not doing, or able to do before? What they are doing is learning. They are learning on their own in ways that were not really possible before. Through highly engaging Montessori-like online learning environments like YouTube, Flickr, fansite forums, Myspace, Facebook, etc. they are learning deeply about the things that interest them and are relevant to them. The scale has shifted to a point where the technologies available to learn deeply about anything online on your own has in large part outperformed what our school pedagogies and our school systems can compete with.
To illustrate this, take the following video as an example. What is this kid doing in this video? How is he using the technology to aid in his learning? Does he need school to help him learn? What is the broad implication of this? It is worth seeing this video on the YouTube page and reading through the comments he has received (click here).
Do online schools do this? No, not really, but what they do is offer a credential just like students can get at a traditional brick and mortar, only online allows a student to endure the arduous and tedious task of schooling at their own pace and in their own time. Online schools allow students the ability to let their own interest-driven learning to take a front seat and take top priority. The asynchronous nature of the majority of online instruction means that it is not getting in the way of the learning activities that are really meaningful to kids. It is not that online learning or individualized instruction in an online school are so much better than that which students receive face to face in a traditional brick and mortar, it is that online schools don't get in the way.
The founders of this new online company claim their goal is to bring down the traditional education systems with their new product Supercool School (unfortunate name, potentially promising product) that lets anyone start their own online school. I can see this having huge implications for cooperate training and DIY training, it will likely disrupt some community education programming, but will it replace school? Doubtful but then how many products actually find a niche in the populations they envision their product serving?
This makes so much sense for marrying the CMS AND PLN (but the question is, will the traditional institute of learning be expendable/replaceable under this model?):
In this week's Time magazine there is an article about an idea that is gaining steam in many states that involves mandating summer school. The article points out that research shows that in the summer students suffer a 2 month loss in reading progress. It also points out that this is a big initiative of Arne Duncan and the Obama Department of Ed. The article also point out some interesting statistics. They take Massachusetts as an example to show that it costs the state $1300 per pupil to run summer school programs. To me this seems a bit high. The dilemma is that with districts already having to cut back across the country, how can we afford this? The counter dilemma is, with the research findings on the effect of summers off vs summer school, how can we afford not to?
When I read this article an idea synthesized in my head that I just have to get out there. I am sure it has been thought of before but it is an idea that seems to make sense to me and I believe is worth further discussion. The idea is to make mandatory summer school online. Many states are beginning to require students to have taken an online class to graduate and this for one would be one place this requirement could be met without overburdening or complicating normal school year operations. I also believe it will be substantially cheaper.
This summer I have been teaching summer school courses for National Connections Academy. Tuition for a class was $125/course and students could take up to two courses either concurrently or simultaneously. At $125/course I believe this summer program was still profitable for the school. That is roughly $1175 less per pupil than Massachusetts is reportedly spending.
Now, I know the first thing many people will say is, "What about students who don't have computers or access to the internet?" Well, such students most likely would also fall into an economic category that would qualify them for free or reduced lunch. We could use that litmus test to gauge who would be in need and provide those families with the necessary technology. A netbook costs around $350 and a stipend for bradband internet service could be issued for $100/month or less. Combined, for our most needy students that is a cost of $575 instead of $1300 (a $725 savings).
Coincidentally, doing this would also solve some other problems. Many schools would like to go to a 1:1 setting but that model has not yet proven to be financially sustainable. If we mandate students take online courses in the summer we essentially mandate that they have the tools to do so. If through a combination of providing these tools for poor families and requiring them as a school supply for everyone else we create a 1:1 potential for all students. There would be no reason why a teacher couldn't just decide theire classroom is a 1:1. Schools would then have to decide whether to mandate all teachers apply 1:1 pedagogies in their classrooms or leave it up to teacher discression. Schools would need to shift their technology priorities toward that of being a service provider and open WIFI networks to all students. I belive having this 1:1 potential for all schools would also prompt much needed innovation in our field in places where before it was hindered by lack of resources. Also, solving the digital equity problem for students will also solve it for parents. A whole new host of community education and parent outreach will be made possible. I am sure there are other problems this would solve as well.
The biggest problem I see, and the number one reason such an idea is likely to get some resistence from teacher unions and local school boards, is that many students who would never have taken an online class otherwise might find that method of delivery preferable and more suited to their needs than already have found their way there. The fear would be that these students would leave the traditional brick and mortar institutions for their online counterparts further propelling the momentious shift of pupil units to these schools. The result always means more cuts to the traditional model and with more cuts means fewer program offerings which could potentially spark another round of students leaving or force consolidation. This idea is bad for the status quo which for many of us is actually a positive.
We often hear of school districts heralding an initiative as promoting 21st Century Learning and we often hear people talk about needing to have 21st Century Classrooms or adopting a 21st Century pedagogy. However, as near as I can tell most of the time "21st Century _____" is used it lacks a concrete definition or consensual understanding of what it means. Instead, it becomes a handy buzz word or phrase that can be used to beef up public relations. While everyone talks about it, no one ever defines it. On close inspection, most of the times it is used one can discern that the party using it to describe or promote something doesn't have a firm grasp of what it means either. I propose that this has reached a point where the nebulous nature of this idea is potentially harmful and potentially corrupting of the major decisions our teachers, school administrators, schools, districts, and universities make. If we are going to continue making important and expensive decisions based on the notion of 21st Century Learning we need to have no more than two or three possible definitions of what it means (preferably one definition).
Back in August Wesley Fryer posted an article to his blog that set off a lively debate about electronic whiteboard use. That topic was recently brought up again on the Learning in Maine blog but put into the context of whether electronic whiteboards support 21st Century Education. I highly recommend both of these articles and the comment streams that follow them as they begin to seriously address this question of defining 21st Century Education.
So, what is 21st Century Education and how does it differ from 20th Century Education? How far from the trees do we need to look to see this forest? In August of 2007 I put together a video called Why We Need to Teach Technology in School which attempts to make people think about how technology might be changing education. The video offers no solution, nor does it offer any definition of what 21st Century Education looks like. In many ways I was not sure I could answer those questions at that time. This blog post is an attempt of mine to take this discussion to the next step and try and work out these big ideas.
21st Century Education is defined by what technologies available to us today make possible and what they render obsolete. The technology that effects education the most is networked digital electronics such as computers, the internet, cell phones, portable media players, digital cameras, digital camcorders, etc. and the software developed to use with them. Daniel Pink says that in our new economy everything that can either be outsourced or automated will be. I don't think this is anything new. We have seen this story again and again throughout history. When photography was invented in the 1800s much of the work previously done by painters was automated by the camera. Nearly every time an invention comes along that can get something done more efficiently an industry suffers. This idea has been well explained and detailed by Clayton Christensen and his theory of disruptive innovation.
When the camera was invented it set the art world into a century long identity crisis known as Modernism. Since painting could not primarily be about creating images it had to be about something else. Modernism was all about defining what art is minus the prior dominant attribute of image rendering. This time was marked by many artistic movements, all with their own philosophies, definitions, and manifestos. Examples of this include Impressionism, Expressionsim, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, and Pop Art. All radically different but share the same absence of image rendering being their primary attribute. This is where I think we are with 21st Century Schools.
21st Century Schools are in the middle of an identity crisis. New technologies render unnecessary some major elements of pedagogy that have, since the inception of the industrial revolution, become indoctrinated and so ingrained into what we think of as school that the absence of such pedagogical constructs throws into question whether what we are talking about is school at all. For example, with online digital video and open courseware there is no longer a need for teachers to lecture. In fact, we can take the very best lecturers on a subject, record their presentations, and upload them to YouTube where students can view them at any time. In many ways this is better because if they miss something they can rewind or if they are not ready to watch and listen now they can wait until they are ready. Also, through digital quiz or survey tools students can be pretested to identify what their learning needs are before they take a course. These same digital tools can be used to automate some forms of assessment. So, essentially we can outsource lectures and automate objective assessment. With these learning resources available anytime anywhere there eliminates a need to move all students along at the same pace. There also eliminates the need for all students to learn in the same way or even be physically present with the teacher and other students in the same classroom at the same time.
Online schools have been described by many as being "21st Century." While this is in part true because the school would not be possible without 21st Century technology there are as many learning theories applied to online schools as are applied in traditional classrooms. Many online schools simply take what would have been done in a traditional classroom and put it online so students can attend remotely. I would not use online schools as being the single exemplar of "21st Century Schools." Rather the terms "Online Learning" and "Online Schools" refer to a medium, not a pedagogy. If we use the medium to define 21st Century ______ as most of us have been then that definition will keep changing at a rate that we will not be able to keep up with. An online school can be "21st Century" but not all are.
One thing our pre-digital schools were not very good at was differentiated instruction. Another thing they did not have the proper resources to fully implement was authentic assessment. Research studies done by Caine and Caine (1991), Brooks and Brooks (1993), and many others exploring the effect of constructivist teaching strategies have overwhelmingly illustrated the power constructivist approaches like project-based learning have to promote both achievement and incite intrinsic motivation to learning objectives. Outsourcing and automating things that in the traditional classroom take a lot of time and energy frees the teacher up to be able to facilitate a true project-based, authentic learning, constructivist classroom. It is the pedagogy made possible by 21st century technology that is what defines a 21st Century School or 21st Century Learning. Right now the EdVisions schools like New Country School and Avalon are more pure examples of 21st Century schools.
So, this changes the question to whether 21 Century Education necessitates a replacement of prior models of schooling. I argue no. While Dan Willingham might disagree, I believe there is a kernel of truth behind learning style theories. Most specifically I believe the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner is important and valid. I believe that students have different learning needs depending upon what subject they are studying. These needs are different for each student. One student may benefit more from a traditional class in Math while learning more in Social Studies by a constructivist approach. Another student may learn Social Studies better in a traditional class and math with project-based learning. It really depends for each individual on what kind of motivation they need and what kind of social environment the individual needs to study a subject.
What I advocate for is blend of the traditional and the 21st Century. I would like to see schools opperate in dual fashion. Think of it as two schools in one (not necessarily a school within a school). Students learning needs and interests can be identified and students can be placed either in a traditional classroom or work indepenedently with the help of an advisor based on whichever learning modality is optimal for each student in each subject.
I have been thinking lately about how a project-based charter school within a school could work. Here are my thoughts on how the learning process would be structured:
Lets face it, the disruptive forces described by Clayton Christensen in "Disrupting Class," this post on Fluid Learning, and the subsequent conversations that have emerged today on Dean Shareski's blog and Will Richardson's blog are going to have an effect on our schools. These forces include the internet, personalized learning, and school choice. So far what we have seen play out is as technology and the internet improve the choice to either home school a child or enroll them in an online school has gotten easier; as more charter and magnet schools open they pull students from the enrollment of our traditional schools; and the inflexibility of our schools has led to an increased dropout rate and a growing number of students who see more value in teaching themselves what they think they need to know than seeking a diploma or degree. The result has been lots of either/or scenarios. You are either enrolled in an online class or you are enrolled in a traditional classroom...you either are home schooled or you attend a public or private school...you either are mainstreamed or you are in some kind of alternative program. This approach has spread us thin. All of these approaches either ignore altogether or place bets on the disruptive forces and such a polar choice leaves few good choices in the long run.
What is it, or what was it, about the schools we grew up with that our communities loved? What programs did those schools offer that added identity and built community? I would suspect that for most of us those things were the arts programs, athletic programs, extra curricular activities, clubs, and organizations. These were the things we celebrated and these are the first to go when disruptive innovation is dealt with in a polar fashion. How can we retain what we hold dear about our community schools in the face of disruptive innovation?
Before we can answer that question we need to look at what the disruption really is. The disruption is the internet. The internet is what is behind the flat world that Thomas Friedman talks about and it is the tool that makes the kind of grass-roots social action and semantic restructuring that Clay Shirky describes. The internet is the largest collection of data and information our world has ever seen and it makes information cheap. It also allows for the outsourcing of or automation of tasks that are routine. However, the internet is more than the sum of it's parts because behind each window that looks into this great big machine sits an individual with thoughts, knowledge, and wisdom. It allows for us to connect in ways we never could before not only with data but with each other.
Daniel Pink also addresses this issue by observing that what this disruption is going to call for in the economic world are people who can exercise the right sides of their brains, see the whole picture, and be creative. The polar approach we have been taking in response to this disruption has forced schools to cut back on programs that typically best nurture this ability in students.
Now, there are other disruptions that are effecting our schools besides just the internet and the rise of school choice. First, there is the health care crisis. When you look at projections for the cost of Medicare and Medicaid in the future, especially as more and more baby boomers retire, there will be less and less funds available for public education. This means either schools will loose funding or an already poor health care system will get even worse. Also, the recent downturn in the economy will have an immediate short-term effect that we won't be able to ignore. Two reasons schools will loose funding added to the loss of funds due to declining enrollment caused by school choice.
Why does this have to be so? As Christensen eloquently explains, large systems are ill equipped to implement sweeping changes. He gives examples in business of how disruptive innovations literally kill certain industries and examples of companies like IBM and Dayton-Hudson who weathered the storm by embracing the disruption and allowing it to flourish. Why can't we do this in our public schools?
I suspect one problem has to do with our miscategorization of different modalities of teaching as modalities of learning. Cognitively, is online learning any different than any other type of formal learning? Certainly online teaching is different than teaching face-to-face but is learning any different? One benefit to online schooling is the students have to be active learners, in an online learning environment passive learning is equivalent to absenteeism. In that way there might be a difference but active learning is active learning and the same level of engagement can be achieved in a traditional classroom as well. Online teaching strategies can be applied in a traditional classroom to support and extend learning just as films can be shown in classes to support the curriculum. Why do we have to think of online learning as one form of learning separate from others?
While there may not be a significant difference in how we learn online as opposed to face-to-face there is a difference in how we learn with different types of assessments and teaching strategies. From a funding standpoint we really have two different models: seat time vs. project-based. One involves a talking head and the other authentic assessments and both can be employed in either an online setting or face-to-face.
So, here is the solution I propose to deal with all of this:
Schools need to start by embracing disruption and support it.
They can do this by starting charter schools within their own walls, a school within a school concept.
One charter school could be created that leased space in each of the host schools.
This charter school would serve students who are dual enrolled in their school and the independent school district the charter is leasing a room from.
These classrooms could be connected through digital tools and/or ITV
This charter school would be based on a project-based model instead of seat time but employ online teaching strategies to enhance and facilitate instruction and inquiry.
Students would meet one day a week with their teacher in the charter but have access to daily classes in the traditional school. The other days the students could work from home.
The days students are present the teacher could meet with 10-15 students thereby keeping the perceived class size down to ideal numbers but meet everyday with a different group thereby increasing their enrollment for one instructional class hour to 50-75 students. This will reduce the cost of education.
The independent school districts could then pass these savings on to retaining and growing programs that are done better face-to-face on a daily basis.
This charter need not be a diploma granting institution and could exist only to support and enhance education in the ISD.
This model could be franchised and opened in other schools. The more schools that allow a classroom for this charter in their district the better both schools become because more teachers in the network mean more course offerings and more funds directed toward arts, athletics, and extra curricular programs.
Many of our smaller schools already have a program that sets a precedent for this since most smaller rural schools have some kind of ITV setup and collaboration with neighboring districts.
I am serious about making this work and have been thinking about it for close to 3 years now. I have a potential sponsor for the charter and three districts with administrators interested in trying this out as well as 7-10 teachers who are interested in piloting this program so it is very possible this idea might fly. What are your thoughts? I would love any and all feedback.
Yesterday I attended a brainstorm/information session about the possiblity of creating some online hybrid classes for some of the schools in our consortium. The rational for such a move would be to try to keep students enrolled in our schools who might be tempted to transfer to an online school. While the intentions with this are good there are some fundamental questions that this raised for me.
First, why do students choose to attend an online school? I know from also working for an online provider that many online schools attract students who normally would not attend tradional public school. These include students who would otherwise be homeschooled, students who have had problems in their traditional settings ranging from bullies to expulsion, students who have physical disabilities that prevent them from leaving their homes, and students who are not challenged in a classroom where the teacher has to teach to the middle child. Which of these students would be served by a hybrid class? Certainly families who want to keep their children at home would prefer homeschooling or 100% online instruction to a hybrid. Students who leave because of problems with bullies most likely won't escape that problem in a hybrid class where they might meet with those students once or twice a week. If we expel a student we are excluding them from a hybrid class as well. This leaves a narrow margin of students who would be better served because a hybrid course might provide a more customizable learning environment. Then, if a learning environment can be customized in a hybrid setting for some students why not apply the same principles to all instruction?
Second, what benefits are there to online learning above F2F instruction? It seems the biggest benefit to online learning is customization. Students in online schools can often login and do their work whenever it best suits them. Learning plans can be customized much easier for online students because in large part they work in isolation or at most in very small groups. Additionally, when a student is in a classroom full of other students in a traditional setting they can opt to learn passively. It is not possible to be a passive learner in an online class. Passivity in an online class is the equivalent of truancy. So, the two big advantages to online learning are customization and active learning.
Third, how could online instruction benefit from a f2f component? It seems the only thing that really is lacking in online instruction are strong syncronous learning experiences. Lectures can be recorded and watched. Engaging projects can be assigned that promote self-directed learning and inquiry. And the computer can be used to automate many assessments. What is left? Field trips, class discussion, and some forms of experiential learning (lab and studio projects). Therefore, in a hybrid setting the f2f component should be reserved for reflective dialog and experiential learning.
Fourth, where do these students go if for the rest of the day they have to follow a traditional bell schedule? If a student is enrolled in one hybrid course but are still in their classes for the rest of the day it seems to negate one of the benefits of a hybrid course: flexible scheduling. If a student still has to abide by a bell schedule for seven of eight hours of the day but has one hour somewhere in the middle for a hybrid, what are they doing for that hour on days they don't meet? Do they work alone in the media center? Do they go home just to turn around and come right back almost after they walk in the door? It seems this can only work if a student has a lot of hybrid classes. For instance, maybe they come to school in the morning for a traditional schedule but only have hybrid classes in the afternoon. That way they might only be in school one full day and the rest of the week they have the option of spending a whole afternoon on each class or spreading out the workload over time. The only way this works is if enough classes are offered this way. If only a handful of courses are offered this way the project is doomed for failure because one of the big advantages is negated.
Fifth, what is online learning anyway? Online learning is a term we hear a lot and it is generally used as a term to describe schooling done on the computer. This has come to be seen as somewhat revolutionary but to those who don't understand it it sounds like a one-size-fits-all scenario. It seems ridiculous to lump this into a category for a model of learning. Would you ever say that you are enrolling in a book learning option or a video learning option? Learning is learning and good learning should utilize all relevant modes. This includes online tools and resources as well as text, video, games, face-to-face, experiential learning, and every other mode or model we have. The online tools and resources that make online schools possible are really just another tool at the disposal of teachers in any setting. Any class can be a hybrid class. The question is whether or not those tools fit learning objectives or whether or not they make fiscal sense for the school system.
Two years ago, when my art teacher position at an alternative high school was looking like it was slated for the budget cut slating block, I started to grow concerned about the financial future of public education and what it means for the realities of the classroom. We have seen the cost of educating a child rise every year faster than the rate of funding for schools. As a result every year we see class sizes increase, more programs cut, and less money for classroom budgets. It was about that time that I was turned on to the concept of disruptive innovation in education made popular by the Harvard Business Professor Clayton Christensen.
That spring my art teacher position indeed was cut due to no fault of my own. When I started looking for work, uneasy about the future of our traditional public schools and unsure about the long-term stability of online or virtual schools I decided the most intelligent option was to diversify my professional activities. I took a full-time job as a technology integration specialist for a traditional brick and mortar school and a part-time position with an online charter school.
Over the past year I heard the same old budget issues raised at my full-time day job. There are warnings that programs might be cut and "extras" will need to be examined scrupulously before we spend the money on them. At the same time my online position was thriving. By the end of the year, evidently, my class numbers for the virtual school had grown to where my position was nearly full-time there as well. By fall of this year the virtual school had to split my position, giving a full-time position to the person they hired to take over my bustling classes. Then, just last week I saw that the Oregon branch of Connections Academy became the single largest high school in that state. What is going on here?
The cost of educating a child in an online setting is exponentially less than that of educating a child in a brick and mortar school. With a virtual school you don't have to pay for building expenses, one teacher can manage a lot more students because they don't have the same classroom management issues to deal with and most mundane tasks can be aggregated. Personalization of learning is much easier to do in the online school as well.
Now, not every student is equally suited for online learning. I strongly believe there is still a place for the consistent face to face interaction that brick and mortar school provide. To be successful online, a student must have the self-motivation to work through assignments and lessons without a teacher present and must have a positive support structure at home. Students who lack one or both of these things would benefit more from a learning environment where this kind of motivation can be provided.
My growing concern:
In every scenario I see, especially with the current economic crisis, doom is spelled for the fate of traditional educational settings. If we keep going the way we have been going students are going to leave to enroll in virtual schools and class sizes, programs deemed "non-essential" in the traditional school will be cut and those who teach "essential" courses will see enormous class sizes. Why don't we see a stronger push against virtual learning from our traditional schools? I think teachers are tired of fighting for increased funding, they don't see a solution to fight for, and many see the benefits virtual learning bring. The only argument against virtual schools that I hear over and over again is over a concern for lack of social interaction. But we need to examine and ask ourselves, "What are schools for?" There is the Jeffersonian idea that schools are supposed to prepare students to be members of our society and then there is the Hamiltonian idea that schools are to prepare students for their careers. Neither aim is greatly addressed with the issue of social interaction. And to address this issue, my online students know each other, they have friends, and their social groups outside of school more positively fulfill this role than brick and mortar schools ever did. So what about the fate of traditional schools?
Doomsday Scenario:
We are seeing more and more foreclosures on homes, taxes on which are the source of public school funding.
Housing crisis, coupled with the subsequent economic meltdown means very little money for schools.
Only Language Arts, Science, Math, and Social Studies are left after cut backs.
Class sizes are in the 50+ students per teacher.
Schools forced into 4 day week to save on transportation and heating.
Students have to supply their own textbooks.
No extra curricular activities.
No field trips.
Teachers have to work more years before they can retire.
With 50+ students in one class, the only manageable teaching strategy is lecture hall style direct instruction.
Meanwhile, while class sizes are still at 50+ in the virtual school, each student's lessons are personalized and easy for the teacher to manage.
With fewer costs associated with online education there is money for extras such as field trips and extra curricular activities.
So, what is the answer:
Let virtual schools grow and become the new mainstream schools.
Traditional public schools need to transform and become more like our alternative schools or area learning centers.
We need to abandon the bell schedule and view our teachers not as people who teach classes but as expert resources within the organization.
Student learning needs to be personalized. This can be done by assigning students an adviser who works with the student to develop a learning plan.
Part of this plan could be taking core, specialty, or advanced classes online.
Invest in face to face course offerings that are done better in person than online (art, theater, dance, music, physical education, industrial technology, etc.).
Teachers who do not teach courses described in #6 split their time between advising and teaching online.
Only probationary students (those who fall behind) need to show up every day. For the rest, school is a place they go for some classes or to use the school's resources.
By cutting the arts, physical education, industrial technology, and extra curricular programs we are eliminating from our brick and mortar schools what they do best! All other content areas are better served by virtual schools.
The survival of our traditional schools depends on a merger between the virtual school and the traditional school and an investment in the very programs everyone is cutting.
What needs to happen:
State Education policy has to be revised either to state that all students can be served by an ALC or traditional schools can offer classes as project-based so they are not held down by seat-time requirements that are outdated and tied to the antiquated notion that we need to prepare students to punch a clock.
Training in distance learning pedagogy needs to be required of all pre-service teachers and all teachers whose license is up for renewal.
I have been busy this summer. Our district started to implement a project I put together that teaches technology and technology integration to teachers online. Now, there are products out there like InfoSource that do this but our program is outcome based and follows a method that hopefully will align with what teachers need to do to prepare curriculum, activities, etc. for their practice. Feel free to utilize any or all of these online lessons. You can even participate in our discussion boards. However, some lessons are designed specifically for our district's needs.
Today I am attending the first annual SEMTEC Techspo at Stewartville HS in Stewartville, MN. Today I will be posting 5-6 entries about this event. The following are my notes from the first session I attended on Video Conferencing within SEMNET by Jen Hegna (tech coordinator) from Byron, MN (my own comments in italics):
This technology allows classrooms to connect with other classrooms via digital video.
It allows you to share not only video from a camera but also computer or video screens.
It appears you connect via phone calls much like Skype
ASL so far has been the fastest growing and most popular video classes.
Professional development - teachers can take classes from UofM or St. Cloud State in the evenings
Socrates started in 1984 - Socrates is a network of video conferencing schools that began in northern MN.
4 schools can share an account
They are looking at integrating streaming technology so it can be used on screen in a lab setting.
SEMNET has not yet started offering classes
Could be hooked up to LCD projector and viewed on the SMARTboard. Very mobile, unlike ITV.
Contact OET to hook up.
I don't see the advantage to this as opposed to using a free service like Skype other than the ability to share VHS or DVD.
I think this technology is best left to other districts to develop before Goodhue jumps on board. I don't think it is cost effective for us right now.
I spent a little bit of time playing around with this new program today called Edusim3d. It is a virtual world platform that is intended for use in front of a classroom on an interactive whiteboard. I have barely scratched the surface with this tool. According to the website it has only been available for one week. You have to register for a free account to be able to download Edusim3d and I would quantify the download and installation as moderately difficult but once you have it installed it appears pretty easy to navigate and build. The coolest feature I played with is the paint program. It lets you freehand drawings that are turned into 3d objects in the environment. I will definitely be playing around with this tool in the near future. Thank you Jo McLeay for the links in your blog post: The Open Classroom: It really makes you think#links#links#links#links
Susan Patrick, North American Council for Online Learning North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) Website TIES Wiki
The big trend is we see schools moving more toward a blended model of online and traditional learning.
The % of classrooms where professors are in front of students giving a lecture is 3% at MIT.
What is driving this is the need to access information databases.
We are creating a bigger disparity than ever (digital equity). We need to find more ways to get technology to the students and involve them in blended instruction.
50% of high school courses offered online are AP.
Algebra I is the most requested course. (credit recovery)
Credit recovery is in huge demand for those students who are struggling (I have noticed this recently in how many course management system companies have contacted me wanting to sell our district their services).
The latest SLOAN report states that 1 in 5 students take an online course.
If students are going to do this in college they need exposure to it in high school.
"I'm so sick of it. I know I am smart enough to graduate. But I have to go through these metal detectors....Online instruction was the only thing that kept me in school."
The Gates Foundation Silent Epidemic Study - first study that really looks at dropouts 88% of our dropouts had passing grades Most felt frustrated, disenfranchised, unchallenged. Recommendations: need more personalized instruction, need more rigor and relevance
We are not focusing enough on the gifted kids!
We are having the wrong discussion by aiming at the middle. Other countries are focusing on their gifted.
Because of the flexibility of online instruction we are seeing teachers who have left the profession for one reason or another coming back. Online is also giving teachers the flexibility to work part-time in the evenings to supplement their full-time teaching jobs (I am a perfect example of this).
One of the problems we have is figuring out how to give students the absolute best education with the funds we have.
When we talk about the future we are talking about 2 years from now.
Our teacher training programs are not teaching teachers how to teach online. They need to because they are missing the boat.
We will soon enter a teacher shortage like we have never seen before. We will not be able to deal with this problem without online learning.
Last year Georgia only graduated on new physics teacher. This is not uncommon nationwide.
They are coming out with national online teaching standards.
