ONLINE (DISTANCE) LEARNING WORK GROUP
May 27, 2010, 9am – 12pm
Basement A, Public Service Building
ODE Staff: Cindy Hunt, Carla Wade, Rae Ann Ray, Jan McComb, Diane Rush
Participants:
Marshall Coba, K-12, Inc. & Oregon Virtual Academy
Jim Drilling, Gresham-Barlow School District
Logan Gilles, Rep. Dembrow
John Grothaus, KC Distance Learning
Kaaren Heikes, NWCEO
Michael Kelly, Stand for Children
Rob Kremer, Oregon Connections Academy
Don Lee, K-12, Inc.
Brad Linn, Clackamas Web Academy
Jim Mabbott, NW ESD
Leah Mallon, Kaplan Academy of Oregon
J.D. McMahan, Insight Schools of Oregon
Cathy Mincberg, KC Distance Learning
Virginia Petitt, Southern Oregon ESD, Oregon Online
James Sager, NW ESD
Lori Sattenspiel, Oregon School Boards Assn.
Leslie Shepherd, State Board of Education
Gary Tempel, Scio School District
Jerry Wilkes, Oregon Connections Academy
Laurie Wimmer, Oregon Education Association
Duncan Wyse, State Board of Education

Participants introduced themselves.

Meeting Agenda

  • The work group will discuss distance learning/online learning options for K-12 students for both full-time and part-time online students. The focus will be on the provisions of the board’s proposal.

Framing Issues and Goals

  • Report due to Legislature September 2010
  • Recommend governance models and funding levels
  • Wyse stated what he hoped to get out of today’s meeting:
  • Open discussion, learning different points of view with the aim to bring recommendation to the full board in June (allowing time to discuss andhear the major proposals); prepare recommendations for August Retreat
  • Review goals and reflect on them
  • Review basic governance model, addressing issues in some specificity

McComb walked the group through the topics and the group discussed the topics.

  • Provider eligibility
  • Charter school law separate from virtual charter school law (general consensus)
  • Charter schools could offer a virtual school, but new virtual school law would trump charter school law, if there were conflicts (some charter school supporters were not comfortable with this).
  • Approval Term
  • One model is the state-sponsored charter agreements: three years for the first probationary period and then five or maybe every three years
  • Regular review is needed – there should be terms
  • We should look at regular reporting requirements as a component of the review
  • There needs to be guidelines for renewal
  • Virtual online schools need the same reporting requirements as regular schools.
  • If a commercial entity is purchased by another entity, dramatic changes could occur; a three-year limit could help control this but under the big umbrella may handle that by including language in the administrative section “ . . . if a company changes hands, . . .”
  • District Responsibility
  • Board approves a pool of providers and school district provides online learning for their own students only
  • Pool provided by RFP process
  • School district contracts with provider
  • Same provider can have very different looking programs
  • State to maintain quality and accountability consistently with providers
  • Drawback for providers to negotiate separate school district contracts
  • Regular reporting requirements should be a component of the review
  • Need to clarify whether state would approve programs orcourses
  • Can the program change and evolve once approved?
  • If every district is contracting for own rate – allows for pricing and product differences. Would be helpful to have a state contract from which districts could choose?
  • Are we talking supplemental or full time comprehensive?
  • Full-time online is a different discussion from supplemental courses
  • Need a consistent umbrella for full-time, comprehensive schools
  • District Mandate
  • Should the board require every district to offer full-time virtual online school?
  • One option could be if a district cannot provide an online option, district would have to allow student to attend an approved online provider
  • Bandwidth and technology availability are issues
  • Districts should create policies for schools to provide online learning opportunities and access
  • Incentives may work better than mandates
  • Some technology issues relate to financial hardship; it might be beneficial to mirror other laws already passed and take advantage of all the negotiations that have already taken place
  • Local policies and procedures allow students to access more opportunities and also allows competitiveness among providers; this may also prevent drop-outs
  • Hidden costs exist and must be considered
  • Funding
  • Providers propose a program of sufficient quality to state with a price.
  • Are there reasons to not fund students at ADMw?
  • There are some drawbacks tocompetitive bidding
  • Districts need some % of funding to oversee schools; there may be models in place now that could apply to virtual in a fully comprehensive model
  • Could alternative education structure be used?
  • Should districts should be told how to spend funds left over from funding online option (assuming it costs less than bricks-and-mortar)?
  • Textbook adoption provides one model
  • Special Education Funding
  • Resident district retains responsibility for special needs students
  • Clarity in the statute on special education funding is essential
  • Some districts are not forwarding the single weight to ORCA for special education students
  • One option is to change law to have students become the responsibility of the new district
  • ELL is in a similar position to special education
  • Student Enrollment – What students can go to these schools?
  • Open enrollment vs. district as a gatekeeper
  • Equitable access issues; district would have to have policies in place for accommodating all students wanting to attend
  • District would need policies allowing students to choose online learning; who is the appeal to if denied?
  • Washington choice law language is used in K12 proposal
  • Wimmer and Sager described the Consortium proposal:
  • Enrollment determined by district in consultation with parent and student
  • District has to find educational reason to take the virtual course, addressing need by student need; can be very functional reason
  • A publicly-elected board has programmatic responsibility to meet the needs of individual students; appeal to local district school board. Elementary students would use theexisting alternative education model
  • Demand will come mainly from middle and high school
  • Parents have a choice, but the district is still involved in the determination about where the student should have an option
  • There need to be standards, decision points for decision-making with an appeal process
  • Full time – specific number that could attend from a particular district will protect the district from losing too many students
  • Districthas choice to go higher
  • Every student would have a plan and profile
  • Up to 5% of district students would be offered access to online learning option
  • District would retain some of the funds per student
  • Set by state board, not legislature; allow board to grant waivers
  • Percentage is better because cap is hard to monitor
  • Full time – limit the number of students a virtual school might have
  • District permission is counter to charter school choice model
  • Appeal process for students when district has met the 5% cap
  • Multi-district is 50%; Washington has 10%; may need to take that provision out of the charter school law entirely
  • Focus on what’s right for the kids

Tentative Agreements

  • Virtual learning law should be separated from charter school law
  • District programs remain independent
  • Charter schools offering multi-district online courses need to follow virtual law too
  • There should be terms of approval – perhaps a shorter initial term
  • Districts should have online learning policies in place
  • Districts need some % of ADMw to oversee program

To Be Decided

  • State-negotiated rate v. district-negotiated rate
  • Role of alternative education model/framework
  • Mandate of district
  • Whether 5% (or some percentage) of total district enrollment would be the limit of how many students could opt for full-time online school.

1