Category Archives: CLRN

Are Charter Schools More Disruptive than Traditional Schools?

Posted on by
Reply

After reading the @ChristensenInst report, “Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids”, I felt a need to ask the next question, are charter schools disruptive? Are they more likely to promote the eLearning disruptive innovation or are they creating and implementing sustaining innovations? One is a hybrid, a temporary solution. One is revolutionary.

So, we looked back into our 2013 California eLearning Census data to find out if charter schools are more disruptive than traditional school districts. The answer is not what you may think.

First, we eliminated all elementary  (K-8) institutions. Our data, and the Christensen/Horn/Staker report shows that online and blended learning is primarily occurring in secondary schools. Check out our disaggregated blended learning models here to see how differently elementary and secondary schools are approaching blended learning.

Of the 55 direct-funded charters that remained, 16 are full-time virtual schools, the majority which are operated by K12, Inc. 37 secondary (k-12 or 9-12) charter schools are blending their learning.  There were 136 K-12 or 9-12 school districts in our sample. 33 operate an on campus virtual school, 18 of which also blend their learning with other students.  Below is how charters and districts compare.

charters2 The short answer to our question is “no”. Direct-funded charters are not more disruptive when it comes to online and blended learning. Unified and high school districts are actually implementing more disruptive technologies than charter schools. Of the four blended models, Rotation is a sustaining innovation that is implemented in traditional classrooms. While Rotation grew in this year’s eLearning census, traditional school districts seem to be more disruptive than their direct-funded charter competition.

Enriched Virtual: 37% to 35%

Flex: 28% to 27%

A La Carte (formerly Self-Blend) 50% to 43%

Rotation: 38% to 38%

 

eLearning Census Infographic: eLearning Populations

Posted on by
Reply

How many students are participating in online or blended learning in California? The answer may not be as important as you think. With our second California eLearning Census, it’s the trend lines that seem more important, particularly the rise in median populations. This year populations rose in all categories: overall totals, averages, and medians. Blended learning was up 17%. Virtual learning rose 23%. Medians, the number where half of all districts have more and half have less, are more telling. This year median populations for both virtual and blended populations rose 25%. Download the entire report here. 

You don’t want to miss our second annual eLearning Strategies Symposium which will be held December 6th and 7th at the Hilton Costa Mesa. Governor Bob Wise and Dr Eric Mazur will keynote on the 6th. Early-bird registration is just $159.

 

eLearning Census Infographic: How Districts Blend Their Learning

Posted on by
Reply

During the 2012 California eLearning Census, we were not surprised to find that the predominant blended learning model was the Self Blend (now renamed A la Carte). After all, eLearning was just reaching the tipping point and a significant number of eLearners were disruptors, those students whose needs weren’t being met by traditional schools.

In 2013, though, we’re finding that districts and direct-funded charters are becoming more comfortable with online and blended learning. Numbers of involved students have grown within each district and 34% were utilizing more than one blended model. When we disaggregated the data, we found significant differences between how elementary (k-8) and unified (K-12 and 9-12) districts were blending. Some of this data is listed below. The complete California eLearning Census Report may be found here.

We encourage you to join us at the 2013 eLearning Strategies Symposium that will be held December 6th and 7th at the Hilton Costa Mesa. Governor Bob Wise and Dr. Eric Mazur will keynote on Friday, December 6th. Early-bird registration is just $159 and groups of two or more may register for $149.

eLearning Census Infographic: Districts Planning to eLearn

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, CLRN published our second annual California eLearning Census report, a detailed look at how school districts and direct-funded charters are implementing online and blended learning in California. The report includes five, themed infographics and each day this week, we’re highlighting one on this blog. The entire report may be downloaded here.

While 46% of all districts and charters are implementing online and blended learning, we asked those that aren’t if they were currently discussing or planning to eLearn. While overall 26% said they were, the disaggregated data shows that 44% of unified (K-12) and high school (9-12) districts were actively engaged.

 

 

eLearning Census Infographic: Districts Learning Online

Posted on by
Reply

Today, CLRN published the 2013 California eLearning Census report, and you’ll see out executive summary below this post. Download the full report here. Below is the first of five, themed infographics that detail census data that was collected from 516 school districts and direct-funded charters.

 

 

California eLearning Census Report

Posted on by
Reply

CLRN is proud to publish our second annual California eLearning Census report that shares and analyzes online and blended learning data from California’s districts and direct-funded charters. This morning, the SIA Cabinet Report also published a story about our census and CLRN’s future. The report is linked below our summary and we’ll be publishing themed, infographics over the next five days. With online and blended learning growing rapidly in California, you may wish to register now for this December’s eLearning Strategies Symposium in Costa Mesa. Governor Bob Wise and Dr. Eric Mazur will keynote Friday and a special guest to be announced soon will keynote Saturday. Early-bird registration is just $159.

Census Executive Summary

The California Learning Resource Network (CLRN,) a statewide education technology service of the California Department of Education and administered by the Stanislaus County Office of Education, wanted to better understand the full-time virtual and blended learning landscape in California. On March 1st, CLRN distributed a survey to 1014 California public school districts and 763 direct-funded charters. We received 516 responses accounting for 29% of the total. 46% of districts and direct-funded charters reported having students participate in online and blended learning. Of the districts and direct-funded charters whose students were not participating, 26% reported they were discussing or planning implement online or blended learning.

 The rate at which eLearning is being adopted, the blended models in use, and the desire to implement online or blended learning varies greatly depending on the district or charter grade span. While 46% of all respondents are implementing online or blended learning, just 19% of elementary districts (K-5 or K-8) engage in eLearning while 73% of unified and high school districts and charters (K-12 and 9-12) participate.  Although 26% of those respondents who aren’t eLearning shared they are currently planning to implement online or blended learning, just 20% of elementary districts are discussing or planning implementation as compared with 44% of unified and high school districts.

Even how schools blend their learning differs between elementary and unified districts. Overall, the top three blended models are Rotation (47%), Self-Blend (40%), and Enriched-Virtual (33%). When disaggregated by grade span, we found that the predominant blended model in elementary districts is Rotation with 80% saturation. Just 15% of elementary districts are utilizing more than one blended model. However, in unified and high school districts, the top three models are the Self-Blend (48%), Rotation (39%), and Enriched Virtual (37%). 38% of unified and high school districts employ more than one blended model. 

Online and blended populations grew last year. The census counted 125, 265 online and blended students in 2012-2013, an 18% increase over the 2012 total. However, full-time virtual students rose 23% to 24,383 while the number of blended students rose 17% to 100,882. Median populations in all categories rose 25%. In 2013, the median virtual population was 70 students, up from 56 in 2012. The median of blended students rose from 80 to 100 students. The average number of summer school, virtual, and blended students all rose in 2013. Appendix A includes five, themed infographics detailing much of the census data.

Download the 2013 California eLearning Census Report (5.7M)

Accountability: Inputs vs. Outputs

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago, i was invited to be part of an accountability panel at the SIIA conference. Below are my brief comments.

Much of the talk about accountability surrounds outputs. Each spring, we measure student proficiency at the end of a course or on high-stake tests and make funding and change effort decisions based solely on their results. These certainly are one measure of quality and accomplishment.

However, if classrooms were a baseball team, would your only measure of a high-quality team be based on who made the play offs or won the World Series? Are all teams equal at the beginning of the season or can we handicap teams based on their strengths coming into the season?

If, for example, a team has pitchers who can’t throw a strike or hitters who can’t hit, are they as likely to make the playoffs? And while the Yankees have the highest payroll, and perhaps the best players coming into the season, why can’t they win the World Series every year? So much can be said of individual performance and the value of a great manager. They do make a difference and can help teams succeed. But if you enter the season with a terrible team, your odds are not good.

Who wins the World Series does matter. But, knowing the quality of each team coming into the season helps us understand which teams have the best chance of succeeding.

Such is the case with courseware. Yes, Student proficiency is affected by teacher quality, time on task, and parent involvement. However, if you enter the year with weak lesson plans, curriculum, or courseware, you’ve worsened your odds of succeeding. Inputs matter.

That’s why CLRN reviews and certifies online courses.

Alignment to the Common Core standards, state content standards, and the Next Gen Science Standards are a good first step in determining whether courseware teaches, provides practice, and assesses the skills outlined in the standards.  You can’t expect students to become proficient if the course teaches only half the standards, which is a problem in many online courses. The same could be said for books. Books are aligned to content standards, but Books are lousy teachers though.

iNACOL’s Standards for Quality Online Courses are what separate online books from engaging, interactive courses. Before the season begins, we want to make sure that students will be involved in authentic learning experiences and activities that challenge them beyond knowledge and comprehension, so that their odds of becoming proficient are improved.

Is coursework broad, deep and rigorous? Are there multiple opportunities for interactions between teachers and students as well as among students?

Do formative assessments inform instruction so that students having difficulty with a concept are retaught using new examples? Are there a variety of assessments that are matched to the skills and concepts being taught? Is there a variety of rich media, including teacher lectures and demonstrations and do they included closed-captions or transcripts?

Our partnership with the University of California ensures that no online course will receive their A-G approval unless CLRN has certified it as meeting both content and quality course standards.

For CLRN, accountability begins at the beginning. You can’t win the World Series unless you begin the season with a strong team.