Virtual School Meanderings

May 9, 2013

[GRANTS]: Ambitious About Active Learning?

From Wednesday’s inbox…

2013 Call for Applications is Now Open: Submit by Friday, June 28, 2013For the fifth year in a row, $10,000 (US) in grant funding will be awarded to the six proposals chosen by the judging panel. This year we have added several new categories including:

    • Adopter’s Grants – Two grants will be awarded to institutions looking to study the combined impact of Echo360 and LectureTools.
    • LectureTools Grant – This grant will be awarded to an applicant currently using LectureTools. It is not a requirement to use an Echo360 legacy product to be considered for this grant.
    • Newcomer’s Grant – This grant is designed to encourage institutions new to Echo360 to further study its impacts on teaching and learning.
  • Active Learning Merit Grants – Two grants will go to institutions using Echo360 and/or LectureTools with the best proposals selected on merit regardless of the solution being studied. These grants are open-ended and not restricted to a category.

All instructors and staff at Echo360 and LectureTools client institutions are eligible. Share this call for submissions with your instructors and researchers.

Deadline for submissions: June 28, 2013

1.877.ECHO360 | 1.703.667.7500 | ©2013 Echo360, Inc.
21000 Atlantic Boulevard, 6th Floor, Dulles, VA 20166
Follow us on

©2013 Echo360, Inc. All rights reserved. Echo360® and the Echo360 logo are registered trademarks of Echo360, Inc.
All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. | Call us: 877.ECHO360

April 22, 2013

ATA News: Cuts To Distance Learning Harmful To Rural And At-Risk Students

This is a good example of that cautious support that unions take towards K-12 distance education and K-12 online learning in Canada.  While the Alberta Teachers Association has conducted research into trying to understand the nature of teaching at a distance and what it means for its members (see http://www.adeta.org/files/file/ATADLStudyExecSummaryOctober2008.pdf and http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume%2092/Number-4/Pages/Teaching-any-time.aspx), in a recent issue of their ATA News the editor also took up the cause of the Alberta Distance Learning Centre and argued against the significant cuts in funding it has received from the Government.

Cuts to distance learning harmful to rural and at-risk students

April 9, 2013
Jonathan Teghtmeyer, ATA News Editor-in-Chief

Course offerings for students will be reduced

Education funding cuts in the provincial budget will have a lasting effect on services for rural students and at-risk students.

The March 7 budget’s Funding Manual for School Authorities 2013/2014 School Year shows that funding to high schools for courses taken through the Alberta Distance Learning Centre (ADLC) will be reduced by more than half. Elementary and junior high courses and programs will not be affected by the cuts.

What does ADLC offer?

ADLC provides provincially approved course content to schools for use by students who require alternative delivery methods. ADLC often provides high schools with courses for those students who, for a variety of reasons, do not succeed in traditional classrooms. These students may require alternative delivery methods because of social, personal or health reasons and are often at risk of dropping out of school. In small and rural schools, ADLC provides a greater variety of courses that cannot be offered to the larger student population. For example, ADLC assists students who need to obtain a missing prerequisite course; students who have scheduling conflicts between courses they need; and students who are interested in less popular courses or courses not offered through the school, such as law, business and calculus.

How ADLC funding works

Before the March 7 budget, school jurisdictions through which ADLC delivered courses received full funding for credits taken by students. ADLC also received funding equivalent to 56 per cent of the Credit Enrolment Unit (CEU) rate to fund program development and hire teachers and staff to support teachers supervising the programs in the school. ADLC will continue to receive 56 per cent of funding, but the CEU funding received by schools will be reduced to 44 per cent of the funding received for other courses.

ATA President Carol Henderson expressed concern about what funding cuts will mean for the course and delivery options available to students. She questions whether schools will be forced to push students seeking alternative programs into courses that are not a good fit because those courses are funded at a higher rate.

“How does this funding ­decision mesh with the goals of Inspiring Education, which discusses the importance of learner-centred decisions that value individualization?” asks Henderson. “For students, this will result in round pegs being shoved into square holes.”

Henderson is also raising questions about how Alberta Education plans to implement customized learning without a well-supported publicly delivered distance learning centre. “Public education fulfills an important social function, and students deserve to be in schools in their communities surrounded by professionals that care about them,” says Henderson. She points to the important role ADLC plays in providing courses for students and resources for teachers so that tailor-made programming can occur in the communities where students live.

A further erosion of course offerings for small schools will result from reduced funding for work experience and special projects courses. Starting next year, these courses will be funded at 60 per cent of the regular CEU rate. Work experience and special projects provide students with programming options where the general school schedule does not fit individual student needs. Work experience is particularly valuable for students who aren’t likely to go on to postsecondary education and helps them obtain the credits required for a high school diploma.

Cutbacks will affect teachers employed by ADLC

The ADLC operates through a contract with the government as a branch of the Pembina Hills School Division. Teachers employed with ADLC are certificated active members of the Alberta Teachers’ Association.

Frank McCallum, local president with Pembina Hills Local No. 22, is also concerned about potential fallout from funding cuts. McCallum says reduced funding for school boards will mean that fewer students will take ADLC courses.

“Teachers in Pembina Hills, at ADLC, at our alternative delivery schools and in our community schools that use these courses are obviously concerned about what the future might bring for ADLC,” says McCallum. “We are bewildered by the government’s abandonment of students who need, for whatever reason, access to distance education resources and the support of teachers who understand distance education pedagogy.” He is equally baffled that the government would cut funding to a program that proved indispensable to students in the aftermath of the Slave Lake fires. “It’s hard to believe that a school that was so necessary to the department just two years ago… is now so disposable.”

Thanks to Larry Kuehn for giving me a heads up on this article.

March 25, 2013

Funding for DL for 2013-14

This showed up in my inbox on Friday and I wanted to pass it along for my British Columbia readers…

Hi all,

The Ministry last week released the funding details for the 2013-14 school year.  I have posted the information specific to DL in my digicritic blog.  You can find it at:

http://digicritic.blogspot.ca/2013/03/dl-funding-falls-behind-f-2-f-in-bc.html

The growing gap between funding for DL and f-2-f programs is likely to encourage districts to find “creative” ways of getting more funding.

I write on DL issues, as well as other technology and education issues in my blog, should you want to follow it.

Please pass on the DL funding information to folks you think might be interested.

Larry

March 23, 2013

iNACOL: 3/25 Webinar On New Grant OIpportunity – NGLC Wave IV

Another iNACOL item from Thursday’s inbox…

To view this email as a web page, go here.


Dear 
Michael,

iNACOL is a proud partner on the Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC) grant initiative to address the barriers to educational innovation and tap the potential of technology to dramatically improve college readiness and completion in the United States.
 
This coming Monday, March 25th, iNACOL will present a special webinar featuring Andy Calkins, Deputy Director of NGLC, and Sarah Luchs, K-12 Program Officer of NGLC. I will join them for a discussion of the current Wave IV grant program RFP, an opportunity and challenge I hope many of our iNACOL members will consider.
 
 
 
Alert to Members for NGLC Wave IV Grant Funding – Proposals Open and Program Webinars
 
The new Wave IV grant program is currently accepting proposals for new blended, personalized, mastery-based “breakthrough” school models. NGLC will award twenty $450K grants (including matching funds) to districts, CMOs, or partnerships to launch these new school models; and thirty $100K grants to planners who are at an earlier stage in developing these kinds of models. Applicants may apply on behalf of a wholly new school, a Restart of a persistently failing school, or the Complete Redesign of an existing, higher-performing school. These eligibility categories and the planning grants (which are both new features of this wave of investments) will, we hope, produce a very diverse pool of applicants and school models.
 
These grants build on the twenty new school models NGLC funded in 2012 in Wave III.
 
The Wave IV, Cycle 1 application deadline (launch grants for schools starting Fall 2013, planning grants for schools starting Fall 2014) is April 22, 2013.
 
If you are unable to join us on Monday, NGLC has planned several other informational webinars about the grant in April. For more information, visit:  http://nextgenlearning.org/breakthrough-grants.
 
Please let us know how we can provide assistance. Thank you for your efforts to personalize learning. I look forward to your participation in Monday’s presentation.
 
Sincerely,
 
Susan Patrick
President & CEO

NGLC partners include: The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), EDUCAUSE, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL), and The League for Innovation in the Community College

Find out more about iNACOL and our mission on:

gl-logo


Stay connected:
 
twitter-48x48 facebook-48x48


This email was sent to: mkbarbour@gmail.com

This email was sent by: North American Council for Online Learning dba International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL)
1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350, Vienna, VA, 22182-4040, United States

We respect your right to privacy – view our policy

October 31, 2012

Repeating The Same Misperceptions (Or Should We Just Be Honest And Call Them Lies)

A few days ago, a news item came through my inbox entitled $1.5M in state money from local to online schools.  The article was basically talking about how one or more local school districts were losing money to online schools, even though the district’s brick-and-mortar schools were performing better than the online schools were.  There was an interesting and often repeated line in the article that I took issue with:

Warren and Fort Frye both received effective ratings in the preliminary state report card data released earlier this month. Ohio Virtual Academy and ECOT were both rated lower, given the continuous improvement designation.

Asked about this rating, Wilson said students who enroll in ECOT often have struggled in a public school setting for health, behavioral or other reasons.

“Generally students don’t choose to attend our school if they’ve been successful elsewhere,” he said. “We’re pretty confident that we provide a high-quality education.”

This notion that online schools serve a higher percentage of at-risk students is one that is often offered up as an excuse for why they perform so poorly, the problem is that it isn’t true!

As I have outlined in the testimony that I have given before several legislatures, based on the work of various audit committees from a number of states and the reporting of several investigative journals we know that in most instances these programs have about the same or even a lower proportion of at-risk students (and more often than not a slightly higher proportion of gifted students).  While I can’t speak specifically for the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, according to the work done by Gary Miron and Jessica Urschel we do know a little bit about the enrollment of the Ohio Virtual Academy (i.e., the other K-12 online learning program featured in this news item).

Based on Miron and Urschel’s study, K12 Inc. schools enrolled a lower proportion of free-and-reduced lunch students, special education students, and English language learners than the statewide proportions for the states that the company operated in.  The author’s did note that Ohio was one jurisdiction where the proportion of free-and-reduced lunch students higher than the state average.

So let’s try to lay to rest the oft used tactic that full-time K-12 online learning programs serve a higher proportion of at-risk students.  In most instances it isn’t true.  Further, in many instances the K-12 online learning program themselves don’t have good metrics for even determining whether this is the case because they aren’t able to identify all of the at-risk characteristics of their students.

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,042 other followers