Retooling Wasioja Charter School

Those of you who have been following this blog this year know that I have been spearheading an effort to start a new project-based charter school in Minnesota. Wasioja Valley School would be different than most charter schools. It would be a project-based charter school in the Edvisions model that would exist virtually as one school spread throughout many other schools. It would run against conventions in the charter movement in that it would exist not only to support students who are not well served by traditional school systems but also help traditional schools attract and retain students as well as allow school districts the ability to say that they offer a true alternative learning environment within their school available to all students. Students attending the school would have face to face interaction with a site adviser but have access to teachers in all core content areas through a network of participating schools.

I spent the better part of my free time this spring researching and drafting the grant application for this school. We decided to try to make a go of it with the three rural schools in our consortium (the three schools that share ITV courses). A couple of weeks ago I presented the idea formally to a joint meeting of all three school boards. The meeting went well. There was a lot of productive dialog about the specifics of the program, the value of project-based learning, how to address the needs of alternative learning styles, how to address the needs of gifted and tallented students and those who are strugling, and the effect disruptive innovation in education is likely to have on our three schools in the coming years as other options become more prevalent. The three boards decided to vote on whether or not to support our technology consortium sponsoring this school at their next board meetings. If they all voted for it we would submit the application July 7th to the Minnesota Department of Education. If they voted no we would cease pursuit of this idea. Throughout this process we used a Ning site to coordinate and plan. The following is my latest post on that site regarding the results of each board decision:

Wasioja Valley School as is currently laid out in the CSP grant application is a no go. Last week Wayne Hahn brought a motion at the Goodhue School Board meeting to support WETC chartering this school and no one seconded the motion so it was dead before it could be voted on. Both Z-M and K-W school boards decided not to vote on it since it did not pass at Goodhue.

However, there appears to be a fair amount of support from individuals on each board for something like this. Since none of the school boards voted on the measure it is difficult to gauge exactly how much support there is. I am going to take this lack of action to mean that no one is saying no just yet but everyone needs more time to explore this issue.

When I set out this fall with this idea my goal was to bring awareness to our schools of multiple issues I had not seen directly addressed. First, I do not see any school in the WETC consortium doing project-based learning in a manner that is optimally effective even though the research overwhelmingly shows it's value for all learners (especially gifted and talented students and those who are "at risk"). Second, the issue of disruptive innovation in education is a 600lb gorilla that poses serious concerns for all schools but especially small schools. In addressing this issue I believe we need to create options for our students in our schools that will attract and retain them when posed with the options of open enrollment, PSEO, online schools, etc. We don't want a migration of students another educational options to diminish the quality of education we can provide for those who remain. Such a scenario will only prompt more families to seek alternative education options including homeschooling or any of those options I mentioned above. I feel I met this goal even though no action has yet been taken on it. The seed has been planted.

So, where do we go from here? There are a few options. One option that is available that I don't think leaves schools with long-term stability facing the coming effects of disruptive innovations on the horizon is to do nothing and default back to the status quo. The end effect of this is likely consolidation and school closures within the next 10-15 years. That option is not attractive to families in the district with young children who will likely have students in school when this happens or for early or mid-career teachers.

Another option is to polish this application and try again next year. This may work but unless the Goodhue school board shifts it's current stance it is not likely to go.

A third option is to find an independent sponsor from the approved sponsor list the state provides and open the school without WETC sponsorship in rental property within walking distance of schools. The school would be able to operate close to how it is intended, it would have a more independent feel, but forcing district hands is not a good policy when this initiative is also supposed to help them. For this measure to work I believe it has to be done as a cooperative endeavor with local school districts. My fear for the school districts is if they do not do this themselves someone else will.

The option I am leaning towards right now is to broaden our scope. Many people at the WETC information meeting voiced that they see value in and support this style of pedagogy but were concerned the risk was too high to implement it as a full fourth secondary school among our three districts. If we broaden our scope beyond the WETC schools we could offer this option through WETC for a smaller number of students at each building and create a larger network of licensed teachers. This option is actually closer to what I initially envisioned. Basically, we would rewrite the CSP grant to include schools across the state who would be interested in joining us in this. Perhaps we could get one school in each ITV network or consortium to host one or two classrooms and offer PBL style dual enrollment to other schools in their consortiums. This option could also include larger urban schools as well. In the long run this option is also poised to have the greatest impact on education state-wide. I think we stand a better chance of finding enough schools to partner with in this if we look to all the ISDs in the state than limiting it to our three districts.

Whichever option we go with we are now looking at going through this process again next year and shooting for July of 2010 as a new date for grant submission. That would push the opening date to at least the fall of 2011.

What are your thoughts?

Digitally Connected PBL Charter School Within Multiple Schools Update

For most of the year I have been blogging about an idea for how small traditional independent school districts might weather the storm faced by disruptive innovation in education. If you have been following my blog you will have seen this idea grow into the presentation I posted a couple weeks ago outlining how schools could embrace disruption by allowing it to happen within their walls but on a very small scale. The idea basically is to take the ITV arrangement many small and rural schools have and use that structure to facilitate the creation of a partially virtual, high-tech, project-based, teacher run charter school that rents classroom space from local traditional schools. In this model the charter school and the traditional schools would form a symbiotic relationship where both working together would be able to offer high quality and diverse learning environments that neither would be able to offer on their own. The hope is that these two models working together would make public education attractive to more students and their families.

Well, the idea looks like it might be getting its wings. I have the green light to explore the idea seriously from the three local school districts. Now, this green light by no guarantees that this school will open by my target of 2010 but it does offer the opportunity to put some serious exploratory effort into it. I want to make clear to everyone that by no means will we submit our charter application this July unless we are relatively certain that this idea will improve our schools for all stakeholders.

We want to involve as many people as possible in this process. To do so I have set up a Ning. I invite anyone with an interest in progressive education, charter schools, project-based learning, education technology, alternative pedagogy, networked learning, or Minnesota schools to join this Ning and help us shape this charter. All feedback and contribution is needed and welcome.


Visit WETC Charter School Planners

What is Online Learning Anyway?

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.