Online Learning: Which Way to Go?

Well, it's been a big week.   Apple debuted it's new i-texts, and the Anita District is one of the schools in the state exploring online learning for its next year of offerings.  Several others are contemplating the idea.

And yet...I hesitate about these types of corporate blended learning.   In all honesty, I don't see that this new form of education is much different than the 'old' form of education we've had for years, and which has met the needs of top-level, highly-motivated** kids for a fee.   (**emphasis mine)



Traditional Online Options 

Quite honestly, if all your student does is read online, do simulations online, and take a traditional test online, I'm not certain that the criteria of rigor and relevance is being met in their education; more likely, you are letting the book or the canned curriculum dictate what is best for your students.  This seems to me to be what is happening with the big online programs being pursued by Iowa School Districts.  It's an easy fix, especially since about 80% of the general fund goes to teaching salaries.  What if you could replace a teacher with a digital curriculum that meets 24/7?  Should your district do it?  I'd suggest doing some homework before saying yes to one of these schools, especially when you look beyond their intro videos to the meat of the content. Shoehorning kids into a class only for the purpose of checking the curriculum off a list of to-be-completed requirements is not the best reason to choose one of these classes.

Version 2.0 of these classes, replacing the correspondence courses of old, often has a flash applet or two that 'talks at your kid' and a chat feature at a specified (usually evening) time.  If you are fortunate enough to have a fast internet connection, your kids may benefit from these sessions, but the rest of this coursework is content, not relationship.   I can get content from a myriad of sources, but creating understandings, forging trust and confidence in a child--that is a much tougher task, and the real reason we have teachers..  What will you do for the struggling learner?  The one who has difficulty reading or articulating the content?  The one whose parents are going through a tough time? What about those haptic learners who need models to hang their hats on?  What about the kids who need RTI intervention?  And if....a million other questions your district needs to answer.  Our biggest nod to reform in the online environments will be requiring the BOEE to go through and make sure teachers teaching them have an Iowa License.

Does this mean we will have Iowa teachers leading these classes in a manner that meets the needs and interests and Iowa kids?  Probably not.  I can get a license in most states already because of my current teaching experience, but that doesn't mean I will understand  kids who are so far away.  Imagine if I were to teach the students in a Maine class about a water ecosystem, focusing on my experience (the freshwater Mississippi) instead of theirs (a saltwater estuary).   The misconceptions that would arise would be immense.   Additionally, classes being taught this way don't always have teachers available on the weekend...at least in the experiences my family has had.

At this point, it's fair to ask why I have an opinion on these type of experiences.  Simply put, my own kids have taken several online classes (due to extended illness and anxiety). And as a teacher of 20+ years, I have seen many students work with everything from the Kentucky Migrant Worker Project to APOnline options to correspondence courses to A+ credit recovery.  The courses have ranged from acceptable to awful, and some of them were proctored by a person you could email for questions.  Very few of them had a quick turnaround time for students with questions; some required as long as 3 days.

Here are three local, home-grown options that are worth a closer look.


#ILO, or Iowa Learning Online

Again, two of my older children and some of my students have had experience with the Iowa Learning Online curriculum.   The instructors who are involved in this project have been recognized nationally as Milken educators, and have given back to the local community, regional AEAs and state initiatives to build consensus.   Why do I think it's superior to the online curricula others are looking at?  Here are a sampling of the reasons.

• The work that they have created in courses such as biology and chemistry is project-based in nature.
• It's relevant and rigorous, based on the Iowa Core, and hits on topics ranging from the Manson Meteorite to the chemistry of hard and soft water.  
• Students are given partners and must complete their work, their presentations, and their collaborations using online tools and gradual release of responsibility, rather than passive set-and-get modules.
• Chats are again held to answer questions, but simulations are augmented with regional labs, ICN or Adobe Connect discussions, and meta-cognition that is focused on student questions, rather than simplistic end-of-the-chapter work.  
• In science, with which I am most familar, effective science and engineering practices (to use the language of the National Science Framework) are integrated as inquiry labs, done as homework, and processed through the efforts of experienced teachers.
• Teachers in ILO have extensive training in online facilitation. I've seen them adjust timelines, reschedule meetings for sick kids, self-pace kids.   This caring and flexibility is critical for online education.

In short, ILO has done quality online and distance-learning for more than 8 years with Iowa teachers using best-practices and local collaboration.  This is part of the 'online learning' portion of the governor's proposed blueprint 2.0 and a better learning environment because it's been proven through time.

#iacopi, or Iowa Communities of Practice

Iowa Communities of Practice, or #iacopi, has taken a decidedly local approach.  Here, it's not about removing teachers from the kids; it is, however, about creating learning environments by allowing teams of teachers to collaborate.  Teachers meet and work to develop a quality curriculum that allows differentiation and collaborations between classes in different schools.  This is very valuable because

• The work that they have created in courses includes the areas of English, social studies, math, and science.
• The teachers use each other and the Iowa Core content standards as a platform to suggest ideas of covering a topic.
• It's relevant and rigorous, and allows students to create, synthesize and collaborate with others in the room and those who are in similar classes across the state.
• Students are doing minds-on work.  Because the instruction can be simultaneously online and in-class, multiple modes of learning are happening simultaneously.   Activity, technology integration, and processing are happening in groups.
• Assessment can be compared from school-to-school, giving new possibilities for the end-of-course options.
• While the content concepts are the same, different schools use different focal points for their projects, and share among peers.
• Teachers can employ a gradual release of responsibility as differentiation and collaboration increase.
• Teachers are given training in online facilitation. 

Iowa Communities of Practice is truly revolutionary in the sense that it is developing a collaborative culture in Iowa.   It's helping to stitch 140 individuals in buildings across the state into a "system of schools," rather than a silo approach.  It's reSOURCE Iowa content is evolving, and communication wikis, twitter and regional meetings change the ideas of rigor and professional development for participants..  One of the outside observers at the last meeting remarked,  "The true strength of what you are doing is in the teacher collaboration.  There's not much like this out there."  

Oelwein Chemistry Project...right in the middle

This year I have been involved in the Oelwein project, which puts this concept of local blended learning right in the middle of ILO and #iacopi.  Let me take a second to recap.

In May, I received a tweet from an online colleague commenting that Oelwein had not been able to find a part-time chemistry teacher.  #ILO was not an option, because the classes were full, and #ILO was not designed to handle an entire district of kids.  Rather, it was focused at helping schools offer curriculum for a small number of students in each district (for example, if there are 2 or 3 kids in a school who need physics) Those who have tried to locate a teacher in a shortage area know that this difficulty arises more commonly than we would like to think.  

I already teach full-time during the day, but I was ready for an experiment.  After a series of conversations with the principal,  superintendent, and AEA consultant, and the Oelwein School Board, I presented a vision that would combine elements of both types of blended learning.  My thought:  the curriculum would be online, but I would be available on text, chat, phone, and the kids would meet weekly for a modeling/lab session, with a followup on missing homework.   I would be employed by the district as a part-time teacher in a different capacity than a normal 8-4 classroom. I've been compiling my successes and challenges from this experiment, but that's another post.  What I will tell you is that this model is:

• flexible for kids, as they have a choice of meeting times and contacting me.  Their school day schedule has a built-in 9th hour study hall they can use for online access at school, and I have met with kids to meet their needs using any number of communication techniques.
• uses online learning as a tool, and is aligned to the Iowa Core, the Oelwein Districts, and also adapts the ILO chemistry outline. 
• It's project-based, with modeling and reflection built into the course.   
• It's flexible for me as an instructor, and has allowed me to collaborate with a master teacher.  I find myself day-dreaming about the possible applications here.  I spend a chunk of time in Oelwein each week (including several Sunday night McDonald's sessions),  but more importantly, I'm able to connect with the students wherever they are at in terms of content. There are tons of possibilities, but perhaps the biggest change of all is that my perception of teaching is no longer time-based and industrial.   It's instead, competency-based, based on what the students still need to be successful.

I hope you have a million questions about online learning, but before you jump to a total K12 solution, get them answered! And I hope the Legislature looks at the benefits of local vs. corporate solutions.  Try following #iacopi on twitter, or sending a few of your district teachers to the next #iacopi meeting on June 19 (contact @nmovall on twitter or email), or visit with some students who have taken ILO classes already or contact me (@marciarpowell on twitter or email)

Isn't this model what we envisioned when we first debuted the ICN?  The idea that we could have a teacher of German in one locale, reaching out to students across a local region?  And another teacher who could be responsible for another subject area, building up possibilities for students in remote locations?  The future is here.  But it's our decision as local districts.  Will we build on Iowa relationships, strengths and teaching or outsource our kids to the cheapest bidder?

Peer Assistance and Review Nitty Gritty

"Iowa should be a system of schools, not isolated islands of curriculum."

I'm not certain why that statement resonates with me, but as I think of the #iaedfuture blueprint, I'm absolutely certain that we need to take a look at this plan and redesign, not just K-12, but K-AEA.   Here's why.

Peer Assistance/Review

First of all, full disclosure:  I love the idea of 4 levels of teaching in the Blueprint, and I am an ISEA member.  It's spot-on at addressing the concerns about attracting quality teachers into the profession, and it addressed the issues of unjustified tenure and automatic step-lane matrix.  

Still, that nagging question remained:  How could we make this happen in Iowa, and do it right?  There is no doubt about it...it will cost money to remove some of our current teachers from the classroom, and help shape them into coaches or mentors.  Perhaps we need an analogous system for administrators that is more structured than current practice.

All that I read about peer review uses districts in Ohio and California that are much larger than the average district in Iowa. These programs have district sizes of 13000 to 35000 students.   Iowa districts are much smaller than government examples of peer review and assistance, too.

A look at the Condition of Education# report and the DE shows some numbers*:

• smallest Iowa districts....around 100 students*
• largest Iowa district...30000 students*
• 40% of the districts in Iowa have less than 600 kids#
• smallest AEA...9800 students#
• largest AEA...132000 students#
• including public/nonpublic students:  508000 students#
• # of teachers in Iowa...37000 #
• 15-20% of Iowa workforce...7400 teachers (the number indicated by the BP to be mentor or coach teachers)
• teacher:student ratio....small district  (one teacher for 10 kids)#
• teacher:student ratio...district of 7500+ (one teacher for 15 kids)#
• total # principals...1164 --240 in the largest 10 districts, 9 in the smallest 10 districts
• total # superintendent...314--10 in the largest 10 districts, 5 full-time in the smallest 10 districts

OBSERVATIONS

There is a disparity of resources between large and small.   No surprise there.

1. National programs have larger districts to achieve a critical mass.   To do this, we need larger structures, like the AEAs, to organize and train our coaches and mentors. This is critical and builds Iowa as a system of schools!
2. We may have to pull in the experiences of teachers who taught in 1988 onward to remember Phase III (an earlier Branstad initiative) and the nepotism that sometimes resulted.  In some Districts, teachers were paid to attend ball games and 'surveys' were used to determine 'teacher quality'   Favoritism happened, and I'm afraid to go back.
3. If we have a school that is small (let's say 10-13 teachers), we have 2 or 3 mentors/coaches in a district; comparably, a district that is large, such as Des Moines, (around 2000 teachers), will have 400 masters/coaches in its District.   Immediately, I can the advantages of a large district that can group its learning teams by subject area and grade level;  I want that flexibility for ALL kids in Iowa, not just large districts.

WHAT DO I WANT FOR MY DISTRICT?

I want to be able to get peer coaching that maximizes:

1. Good pedagogy.  So many teachers have the right disposition for being teachers, love kids, but need additional formation in best-practices. An AEA-centered structure help facilitates that.  NOTE:  I am not dissing teacher preparation programs; I just believe in constant improvement.
2. Extensive content knowledge.   In a school that has at most 3 masters/coaches, I cannot imagine that we will have all levels or all content areas represented.   Sometimes, that confidence in content knowledge needs a partner with which to bounce ideas.  And I do believe a masters in your content area is worthwhile for this purpose.
3. Low burnout for those on the upper two tiers.   Being a mentor/coach/leader in a district can make you a lightning rod for criticism if there is not a support system.   Moving the model to the AEA gives you a larger pool of expertise, fidelity of training, and others with whom I can communicate.

HOW DO I ANSWER THE CRITICISMS?

#1   Different buildings have different DNA.   This is true.   But some buildings are having success and others are not.   An AEA team approach would allow us to group in multiple ways, and send coaches with different strengths to develop the individual district

#2  Are we giving up local control?  Well, in a sense we are.   We moved to common core, we moved to CTE state proficiencies, we have the Iowa Core outcomes as models for professional development, community interactions, and we are accountable as a state.   But ultimately, don't we want what is best for OUR kids, OUR communities?   Are we so insular that we can't look to the advice of others, or are we willing to shape our building outlook and ideas by using some of the most creative minds out there?

#3  What will all the administrators do with their 'spare time'?   We know that administrators have different skill sets necessary for the jobs they do.  That being said, I imagine that there are some administrators out there that would love to move back to being a coach. 

PROPER RATIOS

To determine how this will look, I decided to look at California, where peer assistance is being implemented.   My question was simple--should administrators be doing this already, or do we need those top two tiers?   Here's a look at the numbers:

• As a whole, Iowa has 37000 teachers, and 508K students.   That's a ratio of 1:14.    
• We have 1164 principals who administrator the same 508K students, for a ratio of 1:346 (California =1:700).  
• Schools in Iowa have a ratio of about 1:1600 for a superintentdent/student ratio (California =1:2400) 

While I suppose we could have principals coaching in addition to their current duties, that will not give us the added diversity of teachers in an AEA consortium.  And it does not appear that it would free up enough teachers to make it worthwhile. It would probably be more productive to decide if we have the 'right' ratio of administrators to students and how we compare with other states on that factor.

CONCLUSION

If we're going to adopt peer review and assistance, let's do it right.   Let's get ALL teachers the help they need, not just teachers in large Districts.   Let's get fidelity in the training process, so best-practices are self-evident.   Let's maximize the value of our AEAs by providing a community of districts, rather than silos of excellence.