The Group Introduced Themselves. the Directives of HB 3660 Were Reviewed. Due to Similarities
May 7, 2010, 9am – 12pm
Basement B, Public Service Building
ODE Staff: Cindy Hunt, Phyllis Guile, Steve Nelson, Carla Wade, Rae Ann Ray, Jan McComb
Participants:
Lori Sattenspiel, Oregon School Boards Assn.
Don Lee, K-12, Inc.
Marshall Coba, K-12, Inc. & Oregon Virtual Academy
Laurie Wimmer, Oregon Education Assn.
Chuck Bennett, Confederation of Oregon Schools Assn.
Rob Kremer, Oregon Connections Academy
John Grothaus, KC Distance Learning
Caprice Young, KC Distance Learning
James Sager, NW ESD
Jim Mabbott, NW ESD
Brad Linn, North Clackamas School District
Valerie Sebesta, Oregon Education Assn.
Gary Tempel, Scio School District
Logan Gilles, Rep. Dembrow
Jerry Wilkes, Oregon Connections Academy
J.D. McMahan, Insight Schools of Oregon
Stephen Kafoury, Insight Schools of Oregon
Virginia Petitt, Southern Oregon ESD, Oregon Online
Leah Mallon, Kaplan Academy of Oregon
The group introduced themselves. The directives of HB 3660 were reviewed. Due to similarities of the board’s proposal with Washington law, Don Lee walked the members through the Washington Digital Learning Commons web page, so the work group could see what a more fully-fleshed out model would look like.
James Sager explained that some ESD and district superintendents were developing an online learning option for districts and explained how that would work; they had dubbed it the “Public Option.”
Areas of Discussion:
· Whether virtual/distance learning and charter schools needed to be separated.
· Whether all students should be mandated to take an online course—for some students such a choice may be educationally inappropriate.
· Whether all schools had the requisite technology available to make a district mandate workable.
· Specifics of Washington law; how Washington law varies from Oregon law.
· Specifics of the “Public Option.”
· Whether districts or parents/students should determine enrollment in an online school or course.
· That the Public Option, without other options, would limit parental choice.
· Whether the criteria found in the Expanded Options law could or should be applied to online learning.
· Whether a plan will need to be phased-in.
· Whether the process for alternative education or textbooks approval would be a model for online learning.
· The level of monitoring such programs may require.
· That technology will inevitably change classroom practices; mandates may be unnecessary.
· Quality criteria would be established by rule and law.
· Fiscal impact on districts and department.
· Accreditation practices.
· Price of an online school must be weighed against education services provided; drawbacks of lowest bidders.
· Benefits of the Kansas model.
· Whether banning charters from being online schools would harm charter schools’ directive to be innovative.
Areas of Agreements:
1. District-only courses/programs not subject to state approval.
2. Charter schools should be separated from online/distance learning)
3. No state mandate that students take online course for now.
4. Mandating that districts offer online options may be possible, but will depend on technology in place.
Next Meeting:
Continued discussion of enrollment criteria –who can say no to enrollment, and for what reasons. Will look at criteria in Expanded Options law and alternative education placement.
Homework:
1. Laurie Wimmer: Will bring Expanded Options information to the next meeting
2. Drew Hines: Will bring Alternative Education information to the next meeting
McComb will poll members as to available and set next meeting. May 27 am was mentioned as a possibility.
1