The Rea lities of Vi rt ual Charter Schools

StRihCdllAiSenator Rich Crandall, Arizona Dr. Allison Powell, iNACOL Maryy, Gifford, Arizona Charter Authorizer Association www. inacol.org International Association for - 12OliLi(12 Online Learning (iNACOL)

• iNACOL is the premier K-12 nonprofit in online learning • 3500+ members in K-12 virtual schools and online learning representing over 50 countries • Provides leadership, advocacy, research, training, and networking with experts in K-12 online learning. • “Ensure every student has access to the best education available regardless of geography, income or background.” • Conference – Virtual School Symposium (VSS) • Next Generation Learning Challenges – Gates Foundation www. inacol.org

Attributes of State Virtual Schools Most state virtual schools share the following attributes: • Size - Most have a few thousand to about 16,000 course enrollments (one student taking one semester-long course) in 2009-10. • Funding - Funded primarily by legislativ appropriation, sometimes supplemented by charging course fees. • Grade level - Grade levels are primarily high school, although half offer middle school courses and most offer high school courses to middle school students. • Full-time students - Most provide supplemental courses to students who are enrolled in another school full time. Though half offer a full-time option, most serve few or no full-time students. • Organization type - Run by or within the state education agency. • Accountability for student achievement - Most state virtual schools work in partnership with local school districts, which grant the credit for the online course. The state virtual school provides the grade for the course. With the exception of courses that have a common exam that is the same for both online and face-to-face courses (e.., Advanced Placement courses and, in some states, end-of-course exams), in most cases student achievement is not easily tracked beyond measures such as grades and course completions.

Full-Time, Multi-district Online Schools

• Online schools that serve students full-time from across multiple districts, and often an entire state • Make up a second major sector of online learning. • These schools are often, but not always, charter schools. • In full-time online schools, students enroll and earn credit and diplomas issued by the online school. • The number of states that have full-time online schools is growing, as is the number of these schools, and the number of students obtaining most or all of their education online. • Although growth has not been equal across all states, in general growth in full-time online schools across the country has been more steady than the uneven growth experienced by state virtual schools. • As of fall 2010, 27 states and Washington DC have at least one full- time online school operating across multiple districts (Figure 6). Attributes of Full-Time, Multi-district Online Programs • Organization type - Often organized as a charter school. • Affiliation - Many schools are affiliated with a national organization, such as Connections Academy, K12 Inc., Advanced Academics, or Insight Schools, which provides courses, software, teacher professional development, and other key management and logistical support. • Geographic reach - Most of these schools attract students from across the entire state, in order to achieve scale; therefore most of these schools are in states that allow students to enroll across district lines and have funding follow the student. The Electronic Course Program in Texas offers full-time online courses statewide to students in grades 3-10. • All grade levels - are offered in online schools collectively, although individual schools may be limited to older or younger students. • Funding - is often provided via state public education funds that follow the student, though some are funded through appropriations, fees, or grants. • Enrollments - Most have few or no part-time students, and most have enrollment of a few hundred to several thousand students (FTE). • Accountability for student achievement - Because these are full-time schools, they are accountable in the same ways as all other public schools and/or charter schools in the states in which they operate. They report results of state assessments and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Differences in Funding Responsibilities

• Supplemental •Full-Time – Must adhere to all state and – DtDo not grant tdit credit federal accountability req. (State Assess., NCLB, etc.) – Implement IEP Space Needs Across State) – Special Needs (sometimes) Accommodations (all) – Primarily HS only – Student Support Services (Enrollment, Counseling, (some middle EtExtra-curriliculars) school) – Serve all grade levels – Data compilation (Tracking – Part-time Faculty students academic records) – Full-time Staff (benefits) – Student Technology Trends in K-12 Education: Next Generation Models of Online and Blended Learning

•Buffet: F2F & •Online course and/or Online Courses Hybrid/ •Online content •Emporium: F2F Blended Blended •Online instruction place with Programs Courses •LMS/Technology blended/hybrid approaches to learning Blended Learning: The Convergence of OliOnline an dFd Face-to-Face

• There is no single type of blended education; student-centered learning • Policies: comppyetency-based,,ppy multiple pathways • New methods: content, assessment, collaborative developp,,ment, PD, instruction/pedagogy • New Platforms: Web-based platform; LMS • New Solutions: Continuity of Learning H1N1 Increasing Academic Options

• Personalizes education to address specific learning styles and student educational needs • Multiple assessment types • Content differentiation • Provides educational options to students unavailable at local school • Provides an experienced, highly effective teacher in every classroom • PidProvides equaltdtill access to educational opportititunities • Allows for scheduling flexibility (Students have access 24-7 from any Internet-connected computer.) • Meets the specialized needs of students (homebound, special education, student athletes, etc.) Providing Opportunities to All Students Traditional Public/Private

Accelerated Students Credit Recovery

Medically Fragile

Need to work and/or support family

ELL Rural Students Special Education Aspiring athletes and performers Areas Virtual Learning Can Address • Equity and Access • SttidStatewide access = st ttidthiatewide authorizers • LEA Responsibilities • Long Term Suspensions • IEPs • Homebound Students • Drop Outs/GED • Students from other states (revenue source) • State Testing and Assessments • Hybrid learning • Collaboration (Partnerships/Content/Portals) U.. Online Learning Facts

• 46 states have significant state policies (KP 2009) • 31 states have state virtual schools (KP 2010) • 8 states have an online learning initiative (KP 2010) • 27 states and Washington DC allow 220 full-time virtual charter schools with over 225,000 students (CER) • 2 states require an online course for high school graduation • 50% of employers use e-learning for training • 1 in 4 undergraduate and graduate student enrolls in an online course in higher education • 82% of school districts had one or more students in a fully -online or blended course • More universities are offering K-12 courses online – MIT open courseware for K-12 students – Stanford, Northwestern programs for gifted • K-12 Online Learning enrollments growing 30% annually nationwide with 50,000 in 2000 over 2 million enrollments in 2008-2009

State Online Learning Trends & Examples • Convergence between full-time and part-time (K-12, 6-12) offering both part-time and full-time options • Statewide authorizers for virtual schools: important role • Michigan and Alabama: online learning HS graduation requirement • Montana: new state virtual school – Managed by the University of Montana’s College of Education International Trends in Online Learning • Mexico – K-12 Digital Content, Laptop for Every Teacher, Pre-service methods using engaging digital content, new strategies • TkTurkey – 0-15 million enrollments in 3 years • Canada – All 13 Provinces and Territories offer K-12 online learning • South Korea – National Virtual School • HKHong Kong – Blended learning for Continuity of Learning • Australia – FdFederal lf fund dded na tiona ro lltllout f11f 1:1 compu ting across years 9-12 by end of 2011 India •Size – 1 billion+, 70 % rural population – Need 200,000 more schools – 29 Languages (none of which are English) • Internet Accessibility – 2007-08 - 42 million users (3. 7%) • Online Learning – Universal Access for K-12 Education in 10 yrs – Shortage of good teachers – Leverage teachers using technology to bring to scale – Educomp PdiitiiliProgram digitizing learning resources (litt)(online content) in K-12 Education • View as export opportunity China

• China: 1.3 billion people • Digitized K‐12 curriculum • Training Master Teachers to teach online • With online learning: increase educational opportunities to 100 million new students European Union

• EU: – EU E-Learning Action Plan – IB Diploma Programme Online (125 countries)

• UK: E-Learning Exports - 29 billion pounds annually; deal with China – Education as an export New Zealand

– Professional Development – ICT PD

– Teacher Laptop Program

– National Broadband Initiative

– Virtual Learning Network Singapore

• Singapore: 100% of Secondary schools use online learning • All teachers trained to teach online • Blended Learning Environments • E-Learning Weeks Contingency Plans: H1N1 Does Every Student Have Access?

• Online learning bridges gaps and creates opportunities for a world-class education – Learning Beyond Textbooks – Personalization and individualized attention from effective teachers • Both full-time online learning programs and part-time (supplemental courses) Every Student’s Right to Online Learning Opportunity • Online learningggg is emerging as an essential part of the K-12 education landscape. To meet their educational goals and secure their future as active and productive citizens, K-12 students must have access to quality online learning opportunities in a variety of forms that meet their needs.

• We endeavor to ensure that all students have the opportunity to choose an online learning course or program that meets their needs as part of their K-12 education. Advance every student’s right to online learning opportunity • Responsive state policies so that a student’s choice of online oppor tun ity is fac ilita te ra ther than bloc ke d. • Fair and sustainable funding so that online learning opportunities expand with student demand. • Sensibl e and responsibl e oversi ght so that each st ud ent i s guaranteed quality in the online opportunities available. • Modern frameworks for curriculum and instruction so that each student may be assured of credit for successful online work. • Thoughtful teacher licensure requirements so a student may always benefit from the best online instructors. • Valid research so that a student’s online opportunities reflect effective best practices. Policies

• Funding follows the student – Approved Minnesota districts or charter programs can serve any student with individual courses 1/6 FTE • Open enrollment & no enrollment caps – districts can allow students to take individual courses at their own school from a virtual school Licensure Requirements

• Teachers holding a teaching license (in any state) with subject matter expertise should be permitted full reciprocity to teach online – North Dakota has full reciprocity Fair and Sustainable Funding

• Independent, national studies suggest virtual schlfdihldbbtthhools funding should be about the same as those of a regular brick and mortar school. Costs for full-time virtual schools ranged from $7,200 - $8,300 per pupil (Augenblick, Palaich and Associates) – savings compared to $10,000 per pupil national average for K-12 education • AfdifitlhthliAverage funding for virtual charter schools in U.S. is $6,500 per pupil (2010) Examples of Funding Models for Virtual Schools • Full-time Virtual Charter Schools – Funding follows student in full-time virtual charter schools • State Virtual Schools (supplemental) have different funding models Funding follows student 1/6 FTE • Florida Virtual “Performance-based funding model” and funding follows student • Minnesota funding follows student course enrollment AlAnnual leg iltiislative a lltllotmen lim its access to num ber o on line courses available • Kentucky, Virtual High School, Virtual Virginia, Georgia • Texas Virtual School Network – provider and user districts Federal Funds (Tennessee E4TN) Local School Districts support own program (Fairfax County, VA) Special Funding Sources (Federal/State/AT&T – Louisiana Virtual) Private Foundation Grants • IdiIndiana VitVirtua lAl Aca demy is a non-profit (501 3) • Tuition – Illinois Virtual High School (within regional service agency) Responsible Oversight

• Creatinggp an Independent State Charter Authorizer is key – Provide a menu of choices – Ensure quality and accountability for full -time programs with multiple providers and programs – Authorizers experts in understand online learning – State, districts and universities can charter – State charter authorizers • Colorado • Idaho • South Carolina • Arizona Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction Instructional Materials – allow textbook funds to be used for 21st century digital learning content , computers, online courses Online Learning Research

• #1 Online Learning Expands Options • “The first impetus to the growth of K-12 distance education was an interest in exppganding educational o ptions and providin gqg equal opportunities for all learners.” (NCREL 2005) • #2 Online Learning Is Rapidly Growing • “Recent Surveys show that K-12 online learning is a rapidly growing phenomenon.” – Growing 30% annually • #3 Improves Teaching • Teachers who teach online reppported positive im provements in face-to- face, too. • “Of those who reported teaching face-to-face while teaching online or subsequently, three in four reported a positive impact on their face-to- face teaching” • #4 Is Effective: “Better” • U.S. Department of Education Report of Online Learning Better than Face-to-Face (USED 2009) Project Tomorrow Survey (2009)

• Benefits of taking a class online? – According to students: • 51% said it allows them to work at their own pace • 49% to earn college credit • 44% said it allows them to take a class not offered on campus • 35% said it was to get extra help • 19% said they took online courses to get more attention from teachers Disrupting Class

Christensen suggests that 2019 about half of all high school courses will be online. Online Funding Models

• Course completion or proficiency – WkbWorks best tf for suppl ement tlal, second ary courses – Not necessarily a good fit for full-time or K-8 programs – Consider other performance measures like state tests, end of course exams or grade level promotion • Singular count dates – Consider credit recovery or second semester course needs; fall count dates create a disincentive for online programs to offer credit recovery or secon d semes ter courses • Average daily membership or average daily attendance – Instructional time logged 24/7 – Stu den t da ta managemen t sys tems mus t accommo da te “anytime” attendance State Policy Issues • Academic accountability: How will student performance in online courses be measured? • Funding: Does public school funding follow the student at the course leve l? Are pu blic sc hoo requ ire d to use 100 percen t o f funds dedicated to online courses to student instruction/courses? • Data management: Do state systems contemplate 24/7 attendance, non-traditional instructional calendars and fractional enrollment? • Enrollment: Do open enrollment policies make it possible for students to participate in online courses anywhere in the state? • Special populations: Do policies make online opportunities available to special populations? • Transparency: How do parents, policymakers, regulators and taxpayers have visibility into overall online program performance? Authorizing Online Charter Schools

• Do virtual charter schools warrant only tktitihtiitweaks to existing chartering regimes—or a wholesale reinvention of the authorizing function? • Do authorizers have sufficient expertise to approve and oversee online charter schools? • How do stakeholders learn about online charters and authorizer practices? States Need to Reform Policies

• Schools are funded on seat-time, not mastliidtbidttery; policies need to be revised to enable pupil funding for competencies demonstrated; performance. • States need to allow teaching licenses to have reciprocity; permission to teach online across state lines. • Quality standards should be held to a high level/level playing field for all courses.