Issues In K-12 Online Teaching in British Columbia

A good friend of mine sent me this news article and report.

The joys and challenges of teaching K-12 online
By Janet Steffenhagen 11 Oct 2010 Vancouver Sun

Little is known about the success of students who choose to take K-12 courses online instead of in the classroom. But a recent survey by the B.C. Teachers’ Federation sheds light on the rewards and challenges facing their teachers.

The actual report is from the British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF):

Distributed Learning 2010 survey: DL Working Conditions

For those who may not know, the BCTF is the teachers’ union in British Columbia.  Unlike what is often found in the United States, teachers’ unions in Canada have been generally supportive of K-12 distance education and K-12 online learning – although with a skeptical eye (maybe it is just a Canadian thing).

In the case of British Columbia, the BCTF has actually been the greatest source of research into K-12 distance education in the province.  For example:

Hawkey, C. & Kuehn, L. (2007). BCTF research report – The working conditions of BC teachers working in distributed learning: Investigating current issues, concerns, and practices . Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2007ei01.pdf

A research report prepared for the British Columbia Teachers Federation. This report investigated distributive learning, focused on the impact of provincial government policy, the current practices and working conditions of teachers and the development of technology and its applications at the local level.

Kuehn, L. (2006). BCTF research report – Distributed learning in British Columbia schools. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=9248

A research report that discusses the historical changes to the distributive learning program in the British Columbia. The report highlights the major policies of Bill 33, creating a framework for the LearnNowBC system; and British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF) policies for standarization of distributive learning programs.

Kuehn, L. (2004). BCTF research report – Online education is not the same as home schooling. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=8430

A conference paper reporting how past educational policies and practices confused the distinction between online education and home schooling in British Columbia. This paper discusses the 2003/2004 audit of distance education to establish clear policies and criteria for ministry funded online programs.

Kuehn, L. (2003). BCTF research report: Distributed Learning in B.C., 2002-03. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedfiles/publications/research_reports/2003ei02.pdf

A research report presented to the 2003 BCTF Representative Assembly. This report identifies issues concerning distributive learning with regard to teaching practices, the learning environment, curriculum development, and government policies and accountability practices. The report includes two appendices. Appendix 1 focuses on challenges of distance education to support the student’s learning experience. Appendix 2 is an observational account of distance education from the combined experience of three educational counselors.

Kuehn, L. (2002). BCTF research report – Developments with distributed learning. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=5556

A supplemental report to the 2002 BCTF Executive Committee meeting. This report includes educational policy statements concerning distributive learning, information on Vancouver’s virtual school, and practical and philosophical issues to consider for future research.

The largest teachers’ union in Ontario has produced similar reports that take a critical look at K-12 online learning through the lens of teacher workload and teacher preparation.  It seems that the main concern that these teachers’ unions have is to ensure that distance or online teachers have similar workload and working conditions as their face-to-face counterparts.  And while they have concerns, they are still very supportive of this educational delivery model.  For example, in the up-coming State of the Nation: K-12 Online Learning in Canada (the annual iNACOL publication on the state of K-12 distance education activity, policy and regulations in Canada), I wrote:

at their 2010 annual meeting the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (one of the four main unions representing teachers in the province) adopted a policy regarding distance education that states, among other things, they belief that “the Ministry of Education should ensure that all students in publicly-funded schools should have equal access to online credit courses, including but not limited to covering the cost of online credit courses for low-income students and making available computers, modems and Internet access” (p. 29).

Nova Scotia is actually leading the country (and I would argue North America) in terms of critical support of K-12 distance education.  Again, from the State of the Nation: K-12 Online Learning in Canada report, I wrote:

There is currently no legislation specifically related to K-12 distance education in Nova Scotia, however, there are 11 provisions included in the agreement between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. As a contract between the Government and teachers’ union, most of the provisions deal with teacher certification and workload issues. For example, all distance education teachers must have provincial certification and be employed by one of the eight school districts (49.01), must not infringe upon the teachers “marking and preparation time, lunch periods, days pursuant to Article 25.05 [i.e., professional development, assessment, preparation, and personal days], School Year, or other such times provided to classroom teachers in the school” (49.02), and must be scheduled during the school day (49.08).

The agreement states that the school board is responsible for ensuring that there is a plan in place for student supervision, and that schools must appoint a distance education coordinator and that these responsibilities shall be included as a part of that teacher’s overall teaching assignment (although without outlining the specific responsibilities of this coordinator), or the principal must assume these duties (49.03). The coordinator is responsible for ensuring that students have a physical space to complete their distance education courses, supervision and submission of assessments and assignments, maintenance of student records, communication with the distance education teachers, and tutoring (49.04).

There are provisions that limit the size of synchronous classes to a maximum size of 22 or 25 students from up to five different school sites. If new technologies are to be used, those involved in the distance education programme are required to meet to discuss updated maximum number of students and schools, along with other delivery issues (49.06). School boards are required to provide on-going professional development in distance education for all of those involved in the distance education programme (49.07).

Lastly, the two final provisions relate to the creation of a “standing Distance Education Committee consisting of two representatives from the Department of Education, two representatives from the Nova Scotia School Boards’ Association and four representatives from the Union… to address issues surrounding distance education” that meets at least twice a year and provides annual written reports” (p. 100).

It is interesting to see the difference between the Canadian experience and the American experience.  In one teachers’ unions are seen as the problem or an impediment to educational reform, in the other they are seen as a partner.  In one K-12 distance education teachers are unionized, in the other almost all are  non-unionized employees (and, again, unions are generally seen as an impediment to what these K-12 distance education organizations want to do).  Finally, in one teachers’ unions see K-12 distance education as a way to increase they membership and are working to protect the interest of their members while still being supportive of the increasing use of K-12 distance education.

While I understand the MAJOR socio-cultural and political differences between the two countries, but I think this example illustrates once again how the educational reform movement in the United States isn’t about improving education.  It is about two ideological positions and each side trying to impose their view of public education upon everyone.  Teachers’ unions aren’t the enemy, unless your goal is to crush the union and destroy public education.  Teachers’ unions have a specific role within the educational process (i.e., to protect the interest of their members).  If unions are engaged in the process, with the understanding of what they real role is, than they can be a useful partner in the process.

Reason Magazine: Teachers Unions vs. Online Education

This came through my Facebook news stream a few days ago.

To follow the link, click on the image or visit http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/20/teachers-unions-vs-online-educ

I’m always curious about this us and them attitude that has developed in the education community, and particularly the online education community, when it comes to unions.  Terry Moe and John Chubbs in their book, Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics and the Future of American Education, practically blame teachers unions for all that woes the American education system.  In fact, most cyber charter school advocates point to unions as one of the stumbling blocks that need to be overcome when it come to being innovative in education.  I have to say this confuses me a bit.

If you look at the article Cathy provided the link for it is much the same attitude.  Once we get past the obvious inaccuracies in the article (which begin with the first sentence, “I know a 3-year-old who’s a master of online multitasking.” – see Naveh-Benjamin, Kilb & Fisher (2006), and many others who have studied this myth of the master multitasker), the article is really just a summary of the book Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning, by Paul Petersen.  And the article has the same political bias that I’ve come to expect from these non-educators who have written on the topic.

For example, on the bottom of the first page – as it discussed the court case brought against K12, Inc. in Wisconsin – the article states:

The conflict exploded in January 2004 with a lawsuit brought by the teachers union and the elected state superintendent. State Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine), who heads his chamber’s education committee, accused private education companies of “profiteering off of kids.”

Now this isn’t quite right.  The court case was based on the fact that the instructional model used by K12, Inc. required that parents/guardians perform an instructional role (and in the case of elementary students, the majority of the instructional role), and the State’s own legislation required that those who were expected to be teachers needed to have a teaching license.  This wasn’t a case of preventing innovation or preventing parents from helping their children with their school work (ad the latter was a often used charge by the cyber charter school proponents).  This was a case about parents expected to be teachers without having a teacher’s license in clear violation of the State’s own law.  This likely came about due to the fact that when the law was originally passed no one envisions full-time K-12 online learning.  You’ll note that once the legislative issues were cleared up, you haven’t heard a lot from Wisconsin in the past five years – yet cyber charter schools are still profiting from public education dollars in Wisconsin, so if that was really the issue don’t you think that the teachers’ unions would have kept up some sort of fight?

The article continues with a section entitled “Unions Fighting Back” and they quote a document from the National Education Association – who they say are taking a hard line against virtual charters, which reads:

There also should be an absolute prohibition against the granting of charters for the purpose of home-schooling, including online charter schools that seek to provide home-schooling over the Internet…

Now if I’m not mistaken, most states refuse to provide public education dollars for students who are homeschooled.  To me, this appears that the NEA is against using public money to provide parents the opportunity to purchase online curriculum for the purpose of homeschooling…  And you know what, the legislation in most states have legislation against it too!  The NEA are simply stating that if all the cyber charter school is doing is providing an opportunity for parents to home school their children, than they shouldn’t receive public funding.  It is no different than a parent going out and purchasing an instructional CD-Rom or even a book.  Homeschooled parents shouldn’t receive public dollars to do that and they shouldn’t receive public dollars to purchase online curriculum from a cyber charter school.  The bar should be set higher – and in many cyber charter schools it is, as most cyber charter schools have an online teacher that is responsible for directing the student’s studies and actually interacting with the student in both a synchronous and asynchronous manner online and through telephone calls (and in some instances in person).  The level of interaction between student and teacher can often be gauged by the student-teacher ratio – those that have a student-teacher ratio more comparable to the traditional brick-and-mortar environment likely have much more interaction than those that use a student-teacher ratio two and three times what you’d see in a traditional school.

Having said all of that, if you look at the last bit of that specific clause in their Statement Adopted by the 2001 Representative Assembly, it reads:

…and lend themselves too easily to the misuse of public funds and the abuse of public trust.

And surprise, surprise, back in 2001 this was exactly what has happening in jurisdictions like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  The kind of misuse of public funds and outright corruption lead to a complete ban on cyber charter schools in Michigan that was only lifted this past year under the threat of the Race to the Top funding.  States like Ohio and Pennsylvania still suffer, in terms of their reputation for cyber charter schools, because of those “wild west” days that were occurring at the same time this NEA statement.

The article continues

When 2009 began, the state legislature had already obliged the union by capping enrollment for virtual schools and mandating that kids do work under the eyes of physically present teachers. Yet union support for funding and expanding the state’s Oregon Virtual School District (which has been slow to attract enrollment) remained strong, with union members citing the existence of the government-run academy as sufficient to meet online education needs in the state.

It is interesting that things like a cap on enrollment, which has been used in most states in the past three years that have introduced cyber charter schooling, are blamed on the teachers’ union.  What about a state like Georgia, where there are next to no unions at all, who gets the blame for the enrollment cap for cyber charter schooling in that state?  The same thing with funding, and I’ll used Georgia as an example again…  A good red state, where there is basically no teachers’ union at all and the conservative voice is the dominant public opinion.  The proposed $3200/student for cyber charter school funding in Georgia is among the most restrictive in the United States.  But let’s blame it on the unions because their an easy scapegoat!

In the very next paragraph, the article reads:

Says Dreyer [i.e., Barbara Dreyer, CEO of Connections Academy]: “Many states say, ‘We hate the whole thing with these for-profit providers. We should just do it ourselves.’ But with the exception of FLVS, nobody has been able to do it. It’s complicated; it takes capital. It’s tough to do it from scratch. They don’t have expertise. It’s particularly tough in these times when there is no money.”

The authors of the article, being blinded by their convenient whipping boy, don’t bother to unpack this statement.  Why is it that cyber charter schools and FLVS are the only organizations that are able to provide full-time online learning?  Could it be that both cyber charters and FLVS are the only ones that receive block full-time enrollment (FTE) funding?  FTE funding means that if there are 500 students, the school gets the full FTE for 500 students.  This is generally a figured in the $5,000 to $20,000 range – depending on the state and even the county; and I believe the national average is around $10,000.  You see most state-wide programs, like the one in Oregon, get a block grant from the government and then have to charge school districts a per course fee (usually in the range of $250-$350 per semester-long course).  These state-wide programs can’t handle large scale full-time enrollment because they aren’t funded at a level to do so.  FLVS, which acts as a school district within the Florida system and receives full FTE funding for the students it enrolls, is the only state-wide able to provide that economy of scale because they are being funded at essentially the same levels of traditional brick-and-mortar schools (and the same levels as the cyber charter schools).

There are more and more examples of this bias against teachers’ unions throughout this article, and I won’t beat a dead horse with describing anymore.  A close examination of this article leads me to disagree with Cathy’s assessment that this article is a “comprehensive summary of the state of K-12 online learning in the United States today.”  I’d actually argue that it is a one-sided view of K-12 online learning in the United States today!

And it is a shame because it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of teachers’ unions.  For some reason, the general public have bought into this belief that the teachers’ unions should be responsible for enacting educational reform.  This should not be the job of a teachers union.  The fundamental goal of a teachers union is to represent the interest of their members.  So the job of teachers unions is to do whatever they can to protect the working conditions of their members and to fight for a better working environment (e.g., pay, class size, workload, etc.).  People often confuse the job that a teachers union does with what its individual members believe about teaching in the classroom – physical or online.  No one faults the auto workers union for fighting for their workers when the company wants to cut wages or benefits or increase hours – that’s their job!  Also, no one blames the individual auto worker for the actions of their union.  No one questions whether that auto worker is heading to the factory tomorrow to make a faulty car because their union is opposing something that company is doing.  Yet in education, we totally misunderstand the role of the union and we fault individual teachers for their union doing what it is supposed to do.

Anyway, that’s enough content for a Sunday morning…  I’ll have more to say about unions and online education later (i.e., in the next couple of weeks), as I draft a message about Teachers Unions and Online Education in Canada.

Bibliography

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 90–101.

Unionized Cyber Charter School

This came across in my Yahoo! news alert for cyber school yesterday – and while it will appear in the regular Virtual Schooling in the News feature on Saturday, I wanted to highlight it here.

Pa. cyber school unionizes; union says it’s a 1st
INO News Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:43 PM PDT
(AP:HARRISBURG, Pa.) Teachers at a western Pennsylvania-based cyber charter school have voted to unionize, becoming the first such school to do so in the United States, according to a labor leader.

Cyber school teachers vote to unionize
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:07 AM PDT
Teachers at the PA Learners Online Regional Cyber Charter School have voted to be represented by the Pennsylvania State Education Association

In first, Pa. cyber charter school goes union
WHP CBS 21 Harrisburg Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:05 AM PDT
The school serves Pennsylvania students in kindergarten through high school. It’s managed by the Allegheny Intermediate Unit and is chartered by 10 school districts.

In a first, Pennsylvania cyber charter school goes union
The Daily Item Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:49 AM PDT
HARRISBURG — A western Pennsylvania-based cyber charter school’s teachers are unionizing in what’s being called the first such action in the United States.

I find this very interesting, as supporters of the charter school movement will often say that one of the things that allows charter schools to be more flexible and accommodate students better than the traditional public school system is that they don’t have to deal with teacher unions.  Well, at least the PA Learners Online Regional Cyber Charter School does have to deal with a teachers’ union now and I wonder if it will make them less able to accommodate students’ need because of it?  Let’s face it, if the first statement (i.e., charter schools are more agile because of an absense of a teachers’ union) is true, then the opposite should be true when a a charter school becomes unionized.

So, what will this mean for the PA Learners Online Regional Cyber Charter School?  How will it affect the school’s programming?  Quality?  Ability to accommodate students’ needs?  Student performance?  And more importantly, will other cyber charter schools follow suit?

More Canadian Research: Courtesy of the Alberta Teachers’ Association

As you may recall, earlier this week I was exploring the Alberta Teachers’ Association website and came upon a policy that provoked the Teachers And K-12 Online Learning In Alberta entry.  Another tidbit of information that is worth passing on was found on the page titled Distributed Learning Environments, which was under the sub-heading Emerging Issues under the heading Issues In Education.

I mention this under the title of “More Canadian Research” because it is about research in progress that they have underway.  The page reads:

Teachers invited to participate in working conditions survey

The Alberta Teachers’ Association, in collaboration with University of Alberta researchers, is undertaking a comprehensive study of teachers’ work in distributed learning environments.

Distributed learning refers to nontraditional interaction between students and teachers using correspondence, online learning, teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

The study was initiated as a result of a 2007 Annual Representatives Assembly resolution that recognized that emerging technologies have altered instructional delivery, pedagogical practices and learning in K–12. The study will assess the views of teachers who work in online and traditional school settings. A provincial working group of teachers with extensive experience in distributed learning is working with the university team led by Stanley Varnhagen, Phil McRae and Brad Arkison.

Since teachers must maintain the right to determine the conditions under which they work, this research study is an important step for the teaching profession, given the anticipated growth in new technologies in the coming years. With increased presence of the Internet and learning technologies, the line between online and face-to-face instruction is blurring. For this reason, it is important that all teachers who use a variety of learning technologies in their work complete the survey.

Alberta teachers are invited to participate in the study by completing the online survey at www.xls.ualberta.ca/xlspublic/ata. During February, the survey will be accessible through the ATA’s homepage (www.teachers.ab.ca).

The second phase of this study will involve focus groups and interviews. Teachers who complete the survey will be invited to participate in focus groups organized across Alberta. Sessions will be facilitated by the Educational Technology Council in March. For information, contact J-C Couture. Telephone: (780) 447-9462 (Edmonton and area); 1-800-232-7208 (elsewhere in Alberta); e-mail: jc.couture@ata.ab.ca.

When you follow the link to the survey, it indicates:

The survey is now closed.
Thank you for your interest in the ATA Distributed Learning Environments Survey

While I wasn’t able to find any report posted to the ATA’s website, I do hope that once the research has concluded that they make it available.

As I have been discovering working on an annotated bibliography of Canadian literature related to K-12 distance education project with several of my graduate students, there isn’t a lot of research available about the Canadian landscape – and most of what is available is based on the Newfoundland and Labrador experience.

I should note that having a teachers’ association or union conduct this kind of research is not uncommon in Canada.  The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation has done this on several occasions.

• Hawkey, C. & Kuehn, L. (2007). BCTF research report – The working conditions of BC teachers working in Distributed Learning: Investigating current issues, concerns, and practices . Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2007ei01.pdf
• Kuehn, L. (2006). BCTF research report – Distributed learning in British Columbia schools. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=9248
• Kuehn, L. (2004). BCTF research report – Online education is not the same as home schooling. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=8430
• Kuehn, L. (2003). BCTF research report: Distributed Learning in B.C., 2002-03. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedfiles/publications/research_reports/2003ei02.pdf
• Kuehn, L. (2002). BCTF research report – Developments with distributed learning. Vancouver: BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.bctf.ca/publications/ResearchReports.aspx?id=5556

Anyway, if and when the ATA posts the results of this research I’ll let everyone know.

Teachers And K-12 Online Learning In Alberta

My interest in the Canadian K-12 online learning landscape ave turned to Alberta lately.  Not for any particular reason, although a doctoral student of mine and I are working on a short manuscript about online charter schools in that province.  I was looking through some of the Alberta education websites the other day and came across some interesting things.

Alberta, as you may remember from the A Snapshot State of the Nation Study: K-12 Online Learning in Canada report that I recently co-authors for the North American Council of Online Learning, was the province who’s official regulations for online learning included a statement that read:

The Ministry of Education governs distance learning in Alberta and provides a province-wide option, although there are a substantial number of school districts that operate their own programmes. However, the Ministry does not provide specific regulations for online learning. In fact, in their Guide to Education document they specifically advise schools to consider “how student attendance is to be defined, the role of parents in instruction, assessment and supervision of student work, staffing levels, time frames for student access to the instructional expertise of teachers, student evaluation practices, requirements for programme access by students living outside Alberta, programme decisions; e.g., self-paced or teacher controlled, how to deliver all outcomes of Alberta programmes of study, provision for writing achievement tests and diploma examinations, programme and teacher evaluation, [and] how to provide alternative forms of programme delivery for non-resident students who are experiencing difficulty in the online environment” (Government of Alberta, 2008, p. 67).

Anyway, I was searching the Alberta Teachers’ Association website a few days ago and came upon some interesting sections.  In a section entitled Policy, under the heading of Policy and Position Papers, I found this quote:

16.A.20 BE IT RESOLVED, that distributed learning can augment and enrich traditional delivery methods for K–12 students and has the potential to extend learning opportunities for some Alberta students within the school setting. [MKB - Note that distributed learning is the term they use for all forms of K-12 distance education.]

This was a long-range policy item passed or accepted in 2007.  I find this interesting for several reasons.  It only speaks to students within the school setting, so what about students who are homeschooled or take all of their curriculum through distributed learning programs?  My understanding is that Alberta has some of the most progressive homeschooling legislation in the country.

Also note the phrase “augment and enrich”, as opposed to replace.  So, distributed learning can be used to augment and enrich the experience of students that are in a school setting.  What about students who want to replace one or more of the courses in their school setting with a distributed learning course?

It has always surprised me that teachers’ unions, particularly in Canada where K-12 distance education has such a long and rich history, have not really embraced online learning (or in this case distributed learning).  Looking my own experience as a classroom teacher in Newfoundland and Labrador, my school was on a five by fourteen timetable.  This meant that we had a fourteen day schedule, with five on hour classes scheduled each day.  This allowed for seven slots or seven different courses to be offered.  Teachers in my district taught six of those seven slots.  While I was in a rural school, so my classes tend to not be to large.  I had some as small as 12-15 students and others as large as 30-33 students.  If I had to guess, in my four years as a classroom teacher I probably had an average class size of about 28 students per class.  Over the six courses I taught, that meant I was responsible for 168 students in my own schedule.

Early in my career as a classroom teacher, the province developed a virtual school called the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation (CDLI).  In the first year or two, I remember that the CDLI capped their teachers at 80 students.  I believe that number increased to 100 at some point, and may have even increased to 120 students.  I have no idea what they use now or even if there is a cap anymore.  But for the first few years of operation you need one and a half or two online teachers to handle the same number of students that I maintained as a classroom teacher.

The logic behind the lower number was the fact that the CDLI believed that the interactions between teacher and student simply took more time in an online environment becuase they were mediated by technology.  I remember one of the online teacher’s in my own district would ofte use this example:

If I have a student in the face-to-face environmet who has a question about the causes of World War I, I can ask them, “Well, you remember the Boer War, right?” and just from the look on their face I know exactly where I have to start my explanation.  In an online environment, particularly one that is only synchronous for only half of the alloted time, the interactions necessary to get to that point may take numerous e-mails spread out over several hours, days even, before we figure out where we need to start and to be able to address all of that student’s questions.  That times a hell of a lot more time than simply asking, “Well, you remember the Boer War, right?”

And I always agreed with the logic of that online teacher!  Technology-mediated communication always seems to take more time, because of the lack of visual cues I suppose.  I know technology is changing so that it allows us to do more with less bandwidth, but in many instances we aren’t there yet.

So if we aren’t there yet, and if teaching online takes more time so we give them fewer students per teacher, that should mean more teachers.  I think this, along with the partnership building and the history of K-12 distance education in Newfoundland and Labrador, was one of the reasons the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association never seemed to take issue with the province-wide virtual school.  Probably also why I am always a little surprised when I see things like this from other teachers’ associations and unions.

Anyway, more on Alberta and the Alberta Teachers’ Association – although about a different topic – later in the week.