Virtual School Meanderings

August 16, 2021

For many, pandemic learning was the worst of remote learning

A colleague forwarded to me this blog entry.  It came about because of one of many articles that was published a few months back that continued to conflate online learning with the emergency remote teaching, and later remote teaching, that folks have experienced over the past 18 months.  Check it out…

Carol DeFuria

There was a time when I thought it would be great if everyone was aware of online learning and the impact it can have. How quality online learning gives students access to programs they need and want that are not available to them locally. Fast forward to 2020, and schools are forced to find the quickest emergency remote solution possible and implement it in a day! Because so many had bad experiences with the emergency remote solutions schools were forced to put in place, most people think they know what remote learning (and online learning as a whole) looks like. As a result, I spend much of my time explaining that what folks have seen over the past 18 months was not designed to foster a collaborative online classroom environment. There is a huge difference in the teaching and learning experiences when the curriculum is designed, and technology used to create a true virtual community for students and teachers.

We all know students and teachers who’ve used emergency remote learning over the past year. There have been mixed results. Some students had trouble finding quiet, uninterrupted learning from home, some were not engaged and fell behind, and some teachers had difficulties with this emergency education model, despite the best efforts of schools and educators. Several months into the 2020-21 school year, a survey suggested that many educators were still struggling to teach students online, Education Week reports.

What’s most frustrating to me is that I know a type of distance education that works well, because I’ve lived it and breathed, it, for more than twenty years. Back then, our goal at VHS, Inc. (now VHS Learning) was to discover if online learning could provide high school students regardless of their economic circumstance or geography, with equal access to education programs that prepare them for careers, college, and life. (Hint: yes it can!). Now, more than 700 high schools use the VHS Learning program to help provide expert training to local teachers, give their students access to a teacher-led, engaging, small online classroom experience, and help their students interact with their peers worldwide, taking subjects in all disciplines.

To continue reading, visit

March 30, 2021

NEPC – Curmudgucation: Are These Lessons to Learn from Cyberschools?

As someone who is regularly referred to as a curmudgeon, I’m a little envious of the name of this blog.  Either way, I missed this when it was first posted.

Curmudgucation: Are These Lessons to Learn from Cyberschools?

At this stage of the game, there’s no reason to keep imagining that cyberschools are a viable option for education on any sort of scale. There’s a small group of students with specialized needs that they can serve well, but mostly they’ve failed big time. But they are also excellent money-makers, and so we periodically find folks trying to rehabilitate the cyberschool image. Here comes another such attempt.

Where did this one come from?

North Carolina-based Public Impact is yet another reform group dedicated to advocacy for charter schools etc. It has all the usual features. For instance, the jargon-soaked product line:

Using our unmatched thought leadership and experience with charter schools, turnarounds, and innovations for great teachers and principals, school design, funding, technology, parent support, community engagement and data analysis to help states, localities, districts, charter organizations, funders, and nonprofits choose the right strategies for dramatic improvements.

And the leadership which, you will be shocked to learn, involves a minimum of actual educators. Co-President Bryan Hassel is a big-time consultant and “recognized expert” (recognized by who, one wonders) on charters and turnarounds and funding systems and writing pieces for Education Next and EdWeek. His Co-President is Emily Hassel, who provides thought leadership and oversight. They’re both Pahara-Aspen Education Fellows, which puts them in the company of many other charter and reformster folks. Lucy Steiner is the senior vp for “educator excellence and implementation services,” and she has some actual classroom background– she taught English from 1993-1996.

Like most such groups, Public Impact likes to crank out “reports” that serve as slickly packaged advocacy for one reform thing or another. Two of their folk have just whipped together such a report for Bluum. Sigh. Yes, I know, but it’s important to mark all the wheels within wheels if for no other reason than A) it’s important to grasp just how many people are employed in the modern reformster biz and B) later, when these groups and people turn up again, you want to remember what they’ve been up to before.

Okay. I’m sure we’ll get to the report eventually.

So Bluum. This Idaho-based is a “non-profit organization committed to ensuring Idaho’s children reach their fullest potential by cultivating great leaders and innovative schools.” Its 2016 990 form lists that mission, though it includes some more specific work. “Bluum assists the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation determine where to make education investments that will result in the growth of high performing seats in Idaho.” (I will never not find the image of a high-performing seat” not funny.) Then they monitor the results. The Albertsons are Idaho grocery millionaires with an interest in education causes.

Blum’s CEO is Terry Ryan, who previously worked for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Ohio.

Bluum partners with Teach for America, NWEA. National School Choice Week, the PIE Network, and Education Cities, to name a few. And they are the project lead on the consortium that landed a big, juicy federal CSP grant to expand charters (that’s the program that turns out to have wasted at least a billion dollars).

Just so we’re clear– this report did not come from a place of unbiased inquiry. It came from a place of committed marketing.

So who wrote it?

The report was created by two of Public Impact’s people. Daniela Doyle is the vp for policy and management research; she’s a Teach for America product. Izzi Hernandez-Cruz is a consultant who spent two years as an AmeriCorps teacher.

Can we talk about the report now?

Sure. “Meeting the Potential of a Virtual Education: Lessons from Operators Making Online Schooling Work” is the report. The idea here is, “Sure, lots of virtual schools have turned out to be a bust, and yes, we read the CREDO report that absolutely lambasted cyberschools, and yes, we are aware of massive scams like the ECOT mess in Ohio where the school fleeced the state by collecting money for phantom students. Nevertheless…”

But after more than two decades, we have developed a strong sense of the challenges that virtual operators face, as well as strategies to address those challenges. Moreover, a handful of online schools are demonstrating that success is possible.

So we’re going to rebrand “failure” as “challenge.” Boy, that would have been nice back when charter advocates were hammering away at “failing” public schools. The report will look at two schools, which is a small handful, but okay. One is the Idaho Distance Learning Academy and the other is New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. By looking at two schools, the report hopes to unveil the secrets “for other online operators and policymakers who are eager to make virtual school success the rule, rather than the exception.”

It’s an intriguing research model. Reminds me of Grace Jones– no, not that one, but the woman who was one of the oldest persons in the UK, who always swore that the secret of long life was drinking whiskey. And yet, oddly, scientists never started recommending that everyone drink whiskey daily, perhaps because really small samples don’t yield significant results, and the singular of “data” is not “anecdote.”

No, not this Grace Jones


We get a quick sidebar on each school. VLACS turns out to be not just a cybercharter, but a cybercharter that is built around competency based education. It has 400 full time students and 13,000 part-time ones, and the report doesn’t really explain that part-time thing, but I am familiar with both homeschoolers and very small private schools that depend on cyberschool to plug some gaps in their programs, so perhaps that is also going on here. Also, VLACS does adult ed, so that’s probably part of it. I-DEA enrolls about 700 full timers. Those are not large numbers; here in PA, 14 cyberschool enroll over 35,000 students.

The profiles note that both schools enroll fewer students of color than the state, and VLACS is also behind the state on low-income students. So it’s not entirely clear if their brags about greater testing success than the rest of the state are valid, but the report is just going to go with it. The superiority of these two schools is going to be a premise of the report, not a hypothesis to be tested. The report offers a whole sidebar about how hard it is to define success, acknowledges that hardly anyone knows how to do it, and then just shrugs its shoulders and says, “Well, we’ll just go with test scores, then.”

So what are the lessons that we are supposed to learn from these two schools?

Lesson 1: Strong Teaching Drives Student Success

The report notes that both schools “take painstaking measures” to select teachers “with a track record of success” and give them training, as well as expecting high expectations. VLACS takes almost four months to bring newbies up to speed, starts them out with four or five students, and gets them up to a “full caseload.” I-DEA doesn’t hire new teachers based on the belief that you have to know what good teaching looks like in a classroom before you can do it in a cyberenvironment, which– well, is that not admitting that cyberschools are a kind of weak imitation of “real” school?

At any rate, the actual lesson here seems to be “be careful who you hire, and make sure you train them.” This does not strike me as a particularly profound insight.

Lesson 2: Personal Connections Are Key

Cyber-connections lack the level of personal connection that is critical to K-12 education (both I-DEA and VLACS are high schools). VLACS tries to bridge the gap with advisors, who “connect” with students at least once a week and provide families with monthly progress reports. This is…. not impressive. Also not impressive is this story of a “common occurrence” at the annual live in person graduation ceremony from the VLACS chief:

Students will often come up to me and ask if the woman standing on the other side of the room is their advisor. When I say ‘yes,’ I have often watched them approach one another and embrace, even though it’s the first time they’ve met in person.

So, students don’t actual meet their main human connection with the school until graduation (and again– is the “live” graduation not an acknowledgement that cyber contact is not really good enough), where they probably won’t even recognize the person on sight. That seems… sad.

I-DEA staff all work from one of three actual buildings “which improves staff accountability and fosters connection that facilitate collaboration and support,” so I guess I-DEA recognizes that human beings work together best when they are physically together in the same space. I mean, what does it say about your faith in the virtual classroom model when you won’t use it to run your actual organization?

Side Note on Visuals

This very pretty report includes lots and lots of nice photos. Despite the fact that the report indicates that these two schools are whiter than the student population of the state (and let me remind you that we’re talking about Idaho and New Hampshire here), the photos in the report are very heavy on people of color. Trying to compensate?

Lesson 3: Student Learning Must Be the Center of School Design

There’s a huge issue in virtual learning, and this report isn’t going to address it. In any technology-based education system, we’re going to have a steroid-infused version of the tension present in all education– the tension between what we need to measure and what we can most easily measure. Both of these schools are leaning into the Personalized [sic] Learning, which means there are a variety of other factors and issues involved here. But this report seems to make the classic error of conflating personalized learning with personalized pacing. The CBE and personalized [sic] learning discussion will have to wait for another day if we’re ever to get through this. Suffice it to say that none of the major issues are addressed by the report.

Lesson 4: Schools Set High Expectations for Students and Families

These two schools want you to know that they are not Easy A credit recovery programs, and I certainly applaud that. But what high expectations seems to translate to here is the ability to push out families that aren’t up to snuff. VLACS even has a 28-day trial period during which students may be dropped for cyber-truancy. The ability to weed out low-performing students is very useful in keeping those numbers up.


The report ends with some suggestions for “virtual operators.”

First, do the same stuff that makes bricks-and-mortar schools successful, because, as you may have already noticed, nothing in the four lessons is exclusive to a virtual school. An interesting specific they offer is don’t take on too large a student caseload. Not for the first time, I’m wondering what the audience for this report is supposed to be. Because in Pennsylvania, one of the biggest cyberschool states, operators are looking at some of this and are saying, “Are you nuts? More students means bigger payday. And these small class sizes that these guys have? Forget that! Ka-ching!”

Identify what is truly different. IOW, figure out how to communicate through this very limiting medium. But use the “unique opportunities online schooling offers.” This translates into an argument for personalized [sic] learning.

I do like this next one– “Innovate, don’t just automate.” And this: technology “can also lead to inappropriate automation.” But I’m pretty sure they’re whistling into the wind here; the obvious financial incentives are lined up behind turning over as much of the process as possible to the software, which is far more attractive in cyberschooling because the computer infrastructure is already naturally in place.

Concluding thoughts

After asking legislators to loosen rules for cyberschool benefits, the writers offer some closing thoughts.

Much of the discussion of virtual charter schools tends to focus on their scandals or poor academic outcomes. And there is clearly ample evidence of both. Accordingly, policymakers have largely focused their energy on how best to regulate the sector as a way to protect students and taxpayers.

Boy, I wish that were so. But in PA, we just had yet another failed attempt to roll back some of the rules for our spectacularly lousy cyberschool sector (no PA cyber has ever earned a “passing” score). We still pay cybers 100% of the per-pupil rate for the sending district, which is not only a huge drain on local district finances, but it’s a huge incentive for bad actors who are guaranteed huge profits. Meanwhile, the legislature couldn’t even pass a rule telling cybers that they had to stop advertising that they were “free” and must instead acknowledge that they are paid for by taxpayers.

That work is certainly justified, and it is important. But so too is learning from the online operators who are getting it right. This report demonstrates that virtual success is absolutely possible. 

Well, no, not really, it doesn’t. It tries to draw some suggestions out of two very narrow and specific examples, crossed with what the authors believe are good practices for cyberschool. In fact, if this report had just been an article entitled “How We Think Cyber Charters Should Best Be Run” I wouldn’t have much beef with it, other than to point out that a huge number of cyber operators ought to take some of this advice but probably won’t.

These two schools also offer some confirmation of other old lessons, like small class sizes are better and it’s easier to teach when you don’t have to teach the students who won’t work and don’t want to be there. And there are many, many questions that remain unanswered– most especially, are these two schools really any more successful than any other schools.

So argue your points. Make your pitch. But I do wish we would stop trying to package these marketing pitches as “research.”

Incidentally, Grace Jones died just last month at the age of 112, having finally taken the title of the oldest person in the UK. 112 is not a bad run, and she was fit and active till the end. But I would still not recommend drinking whiskey every single day.

This blog post has been shared by permission from the author.
Readers wishing to comment on the content are encouraged to do so via the link to the original post.
Find the original post here:

The views expressed by the blogger are not necessarily those of NEPC.

Peter Greene

Peter Greene has been a high school English teacher in Northwest Pennsylvania for over 30 years. He blogs at Curmudgucation. …

February 18, 2016

[New Post] CTE and Your Students: Opening the Door to a Better Future

From today’s inbox…

Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
Learn Outside the Lines

From Exploration through Certification: Career and Technical Education

Of students who didn’t finish high school, 81 percent say that relevant, real-world learning opportunities would have kept them in school, according to the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) and the National Center for Education Statistics. Gregg Levin, Fuel Education’s general manager stated that, whether or not your students plan to go on to post-secondary education or straight into the workforce, the option for career and technical education (CTE) can “open doors for students to have better lives after graduation.”

Further, the economy has changed, calling students to fill high skill, high demand jobs right out of school. According to the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2020, 65 percent of all U.S. jobs will require post-secondary education and training beyond high school.

All of this change requires schools and districts to adapt the way that they prepare students for their future. To help them do this, Fuel Education (FuelEd) has launched a new blended and online program, Career Readiness Pathways™, for CTE in order to more effectively prepare students for both college and careers.


sharing is caring.JPG
twitter.JPG linkedin2.JPG Digg.JPG Google+.JPG facebook.JPG

Take a look back at some of our
most recent posts!

Making Personal Connections through Online Learning
2.9.2016, Contributor: Kristen Trostel

My favorite part about teaching, both online and in traditional brick-and-mortar schools, is the students. They all have such unique stories, with different life experiences, and diverse perspectives on the world. Some people think that with a virtual education method, you cannot have relationships with your students like “traditional” teachers. Before I started teaching online, I probably would have agreed with them but after teaching online for over a year now, I am blown away with the connections that I am able to make every single day with my students.

My main form of communication with my students is through email. Surprisingly, I have found that students are often more willing to open up and share what is going on in their lives through email as opposed to in-person interaction. Through this type of communication, I have learned a great deal of information about my students, and have been able to make fantastic personal connections with them. online learning.JPG


sharing is caring.JPG
twitter.JPG linkedin2.JPG Digg.JPG Google+.JPG facebook.JPG

Success with Online High School Courses: From Probation to Graduation for More Than 600 Students

In its new series, “Research: Outcomes of Blended/Online Learning Programs,” the Evergreen Education Group takes an in-depth look at successful blended and online programs across the nation to examine the best practices that have created tangible results. We are pleased to share with you some highlights from the John Marshall Metropolitan High School study.

Blended Learning Success

After Chicago Public Schools (CPS) put John Marshall Metropolitan High School on academic probation in 2009, the Marshall staff knew that innovation was necessary to address their problems. The solution was created in 2011, using funds provided by United States Department of Education, when the Marshall staff designed and implemented the Pathway to Accelerated Student Success (PASS) program.

Since implementation in February 2011, more than 600 PASS program students have earned their high school diplomas and more than 2,000 credits have been recovered through online high school courses.

A PASS student said, “Now I actually love school. I want to further my education, even after high school. PASS helped me a lot.”

blended learning woman and students.JPG


sharing is caring.JPG
twitter.JPG linkedin2.JPG Digg.JPG Google+.JPG facebook.JPG

Thank you for reading Learn Outside the Lines!
2300 CORPORATE PARK DRIVE, HERNDON, VA 20171 | 855.668.9050 |
Copyright © 2016, Fuel Education LLC. All rights reserved. Third-party trademarks referenced herein are property of those respective parties.

February 16, 2016

iNACOL’s Trojan Horse

Another blog entry that I wanted folks to be aware of…

iNACOL’s Trojan Horse

Meet Susan Patrick.

Screen shot 2016-02-14 at 8.23.05 AM.png

Ms. Patrick is CEO of iNACOL – a powerful reform group that receives most of its funding from the Gates Foundation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.  Ms. Patrick, who was never a teacher and has no education background, previously served as director of the Office of Technology at the U.S. Department of Education.

Yesterday morning, I watched a video posted on Facebook from iNACOL’s website, in which Ms. Patrick said something startlingly frank:

Susan Patrick 2016-02-14 at 9.26.50 AM.png

When I went to take a second look that evening, the video had been taken down.  Fortunately, a tech-savvy and prescient friend had captured the video before it was removed.

After admitting that they are serving up a giant Trojan horse, Ms. Patrick reveals the organization’s true intention:

“Competency-based models are key to the redesign and transformation of education,” she says.

And then she doubles herself.


Screen shot 2016-02-14 at 8.26.37 AM

Competency-based education is the hyper-efficient, uber-profitable fantasy model of education favored by corporate leaders who are convinced that our schools exist to serve their bottom line.

Here is how iNACOL helps.

Under the guise of bringing alternate, online learning “pathways” to students, iNACOL leaders meet with politicians and corporate leaders to come up with policies that they embed in documents like the Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization Act.


susan patrick and bob wise.png

Here is what Susan Patrick thinks is a great policy idea:

Screen shot 2016-02-14 at 8.26.48 AM

And here is what Governor Wise’s “Digital Learning Now!”Council thinks:

Screen shot 2016-02-14 at 10.04.00 AM.png

After they develop their policy blueprints, they pass their ideas on to the corporate bill mill known as the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC then works with member politicians in your state to submit benign-sounding, cryptically worded bills based on the agenda above.  Here’s a graphic showing how it works:


Finally, your state legislature votes on these policies, which sound like they are simply meant to give kids access to multiple learning “pathways”, but are, in fact, designed to completely restructure our educational system to favor the wealthy few.

Soon, teachers find themselves sitting through professional development sessions that make no sense and are run by organizations funded by the very groups that set the whole thing in motion.  Districts find themselves spending huge portions of their budget on experimental technology plans  andconsulting groups.  Class sizes grow, buildings crumble, children are experimented upon, and teachers flee the profession.

Meanwhile, the corporate world profits.

Can you believe how easy it is?

Screen shot 2016-02-14 at 8.25.22 AM

iNACOL Is Delivery Boy For ALEC’S Model Legislation: What’s in YOUR state?

I wanted to start today with a couple of blog entries that have come to my attention recently that I wanted to start today with sharing…


It’s no secret that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has for one of its goals, the privatization (colonization) of public education. It’s no secret that their task force for education policy is routinely co-chaired by leaders from the education technology industry (i.e. Connections Academy). It’s no secret that the education technology industry anticipates the promise of billions of dollars of profits delivering “public education” services.

As Lee Fang says in The NationVenture capitalists and for-profit firms are salivating over the exploding $788.7 billion market in K-12 education.”  

Meet iNACOL … aka International Association for K12 Online Learning. It is the most influential education technology trade group today.  Their Board of Directors includes Mickey Revenaugh, Executive Vice President of Connections Academy.  She is also former Chair for the ALEC education task force. 

As Emily Talmage discovered, iNACOL is a “Trojan horse” for education reform (see minute 1:48).

iNACOL also appears to be the delivery boy (or Trojan horse) for ALEC. Just look at the two screen shots from this 2013 webinar they hosted on the future of technology in education policy entitled “Inacol-2013-02-13-federal-and-state-policy-what-is-needed-for-digital-learning”

inacol (2)inacol2 (2)

(click to enlarge)

Curiously, the title of the state bills in these screen shots, which iNACOL promotes as positive change, have titles identical to ALEC model legislation:

The ALEC  bill states: “The Course Choice Program created by this Act would allow students in public schools and public charter schools to enroll in online, blended, and face-to-face courses not offered by the student’s school, and would allow a portion of that student’s funding to flow to the course provider. This Act creates an authorization process for providers and identifies provider and course eligibility criteria.”

  • Look at that bill in Maine. Here’s what Emily Talmage has to say about the online education bills being pushed there: “In Maine, we are witnessing this very experiment take place in our schools in the form of proficiency-based learning. The Nellie Mae report writes, ‘Schools and districts are developing increasingly mature competency-based pathways and approaches that others can study and potentially replicate.’ States that have not adopted proficiency-based learning will look in the future to data gathered from students and schools in Maine when deciding whether or not to adopt similar legislation to LD 1422.“

And how about the Governor’s Digital Learning Task Force in Georgia? It too has an evil twin:

In 2010, the Foundation for Excellence in Education convened the Digital Learning Council, a diverse group of more than 100 leaders in education, government, philanthropy, business, technology and members of policy think tanks led by Co Chairmen Jeb Bu

sh, and Bob WiseThe 10 Elements of High-Quality Digital Learning were released at this 2010 National Summit on Education Reform. It’s an ALEC model-endorsed comprehensive framework of state-level policies and actions “designed to advance the meaningful and thoughtful integration of technology into K12 public education”

10 Elements draft by Jeb and Bob ALEC’s adopted model legislation
Customization and Success for All Students: All students should be able to access digital learning to customize their education to achieve academic success.Student Access: All students are digital learners. Barriers to Access: All students have access to high quality digital learning. Personalized Learning: All students can use digital learning to customize their education. Advancement: All students progress based on demonstrated competency.

• A Robust Offering of High Quality Options: To effectively customize education, students must be able to choose from an array of rigorous and effective schools and courses.

Quality Content: Digital content and courses are high quality.

Quality Instruction: Digital instruction is high quality.

Quality Choices: All students have access to multiple high quality digital learning providers.


Assessment and Accountability: Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content, courses, schools and instruction.

• 21st Century Infrastructure: Education must be modernize to ensure students have access to sustained digital learning.


Funding: Funding provides incentives for performance, options and innovations.


Infrastructure: Infrastructure supports digital learning


WHEREAS, academic success in the 21st century, and therefore the future of our state’s economy, is contingent upon our students’ access to high-quality K-12 education; andWHEREAS, today’s students have access to the internet, technology and devices unavailable to previous generations; and

WHEREAS, excellent educational resources are becoming abundant in digital form, such as online and blended learning opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the primary barriers preventing our students from accessing these high-quality digital learning opportunities are outdated state statutes and policies; and

WHEREAS, this Legislature understands the urgent need for its leadership in removing the policy barriers standing between our children and the digital learning opportunities that can ensure their success, and our state’s, in this Information Age; and

WHEREAS, in August 2010, Governors Jeb Bush and Robert Wise launched the Digital Learning Council with leaders in education, government, philanthropy, business, technology and think tanks to define the actions that lawmakers and policymakers must take to spark a revolution in K-12 digital learning with their actions resulting in the creation of the 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Resolution that the 10 Elements be used as a framework from which to draft legislation specific to each state’s needs and not a mandate on any one body;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [State] adopts the Digital Learning Council’s 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning, as hereby presented. It is the will of the Legislature that the Elements be incorporated as necessary through future legislation as well as immediate state regulation, strategic planning, guidelines and/or procedures on the part of the [State Education Agency], local education agencies, and any other relevant public or private bodies.

Digital Learning Council’s 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning

1. Student eligibility: All students are digital learners.

2. Student access: All students have access to high-quality digital content and online courses.

3. Personalized learning: All students can customize their education using digital content through an approved digital learning provider.

4. Advancement: Students progress based on demonstrated competency.

5. Content: Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended learning courses are high quality.

6. Instruction: Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.

7. Digital learning providers: All students have access to multiple high-quality digital learning providers.

8. Assessment and accountability: Student learning is one method of evaluating the quality of content and instruction.

9. Funding: Funding creates incentives for performance, options, and innovation.

10. Delivery: Infrastructure supports digital learning.

Approved by ALEC Board of Directors on September 16, 2011.



As for the “model” policies iNACOL is promoting from PA and MN? One only need to read the 2011 ALEC Annual Conference Substantive Agenda on Education which states:

“…the Task Force voted on several proposed bills and resolutions, with topics including: digital learning, the Common Core State Standards, charter schools, curriculum on free enterprise, taxpayers’ savings grants, amendments to the existing model legislation on higher education accountability, and a comprehensive bill that incorporates many components of the landmark school reforms Indiana passed this legislative session. Attendees will hear a presentation on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’initiative to grow great schools, as well as one on innovations in higher education.”

Look closely as the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) takes hold and changes begin to take place. The new ESSA favors alternative teacher preparation and creates new funding streams for online education platforms and charter schools.

So…what’s in YOUR state?

Visit more about the ALEC Education Task Force here.

Next Page »

Blog at