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.
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.
As we shared yesterday, CLRN’s review process strives to be fair, unbiased, and non punitive. The CLRN Certification process is one way to shine a light on those courses that meet most of the course and online standards. With CLRN being a state-funded service, we do not charge for our review services. Still, course reviews are time and resource intensive, particularly when you’re striving to be thorough and consistent. While we hope all publishers will continue to improve their courses to be more interactive, engaging, and responsive, we’re unable to conduct full reviews of the same course when publishers slightly improve a course to better meet the standards. Because we want to continue to offer our services at no cost, we’ve modified our policies to provide publishers a narrow window when they’ve made specific improvements to meet the CLRN Certified criteria. Our new policy is listed below.
Secondary Review: New evidence for content or online course standards.
When CLRN’s review teams examine a course for its alignment to content standards and to iNACOL’s Standards for Quality Online Courses, they utilize publisher-provided correlation documents, also known as standards maps. These detail where reviewers should find evidence to confirm a standard’s presence. When a standard is not fully met, CLRN review teams provide a comment about components that are missing.
Once CLRN’s review is complete, we inform publishers that the course review will be published in seven calendar days. At this point, publishers may notify CLRN to publish the review immediately or they may allow the seven days to proceed with CLRN publishing the review afterwards.
However, if a publisher believes that there is new evidence, not previously submitted, that would clarify our review, they should notify CLRN during the seven-day window. CLRN will place a “hold” on the review and will schedule a secondary review for the specific standards for which the publisher provides new evidence. Once this secondary review is completed, CLRN will again inform publishers that the review will be published in seven days. Each course is allowed one secondary review.
Supplemental Update: New content and/or course standards.
Once a course review is published online, CLRN generally does not allow the resource to be re-reviewed for three years unless there is a major update to the course. However, in the case of courses that have not met the qualifications to be CLRN-Certified, CLRN may re-review courses provided the following:
CLRN’s first priority during review sessions is to examine new course reviews. CLRN will conduct supplemental updates on a space available basis. Courses will remain in their published state during this time and publishers will be notified of the review results. No secondary review is available for supplemental updates. One supplemental update is permitted per course per year.
Major Course Update.
Courses that have experienced a major update contain substantially new content to meet the Common Core State Standards or California’s original content standards. The course’s structure, media integration, degree of interactivity and engagement, and learning management system have been significantly improved to better meet iNACOL’s course standards, particularly the 11 Instructional Design standards.
Major Course Updates are considered new courses and are reviewed in the order they are received.
It takes a village to raise a child.
Children are cute. We spoil them, tell stories about how perfect they are, and ignore their imperfections. We’re amazed at each new skill they learn: rolling to crawling; speaking their first words; potty training; and learning to read. We just love that they are in our lives.
And then they become teenagers, and their flaws become all too apparent.
In real life, there are two types of parents: those to see their teen’s flaws and work to help their child become a responsible adult; and those who turn a blind side to their child’s imperfections, preferring instead to complain about others who bring their child’s flaws to light.
And so it is with online learning.
Online and blended learning is about to leave childhood, where it often looked cute and cuddly. People would stop and complement how nice it was that eLearning had entered our family, making it more complete and providing comfort to our non-consumer students.
But, eLearning was a child, growing a little more each year; learning new skills while expanding in size. We all thought it was so special, this child that came into our lives. Like all children, we often ignored eLearning’s flaws, focusing instead on its specialness. Some didn’t appreciate our child’s behavior, though, and felt we should discipline it more. Many of us, though, wanted to create the conditions where eLearning could grow and thrive.
Yes, eLearning is special. So were digital cameras in 1999, just before its tipping point, but I wouldn’t ever want a 1999 version of a digital camera. We knew digital photography was special, and recognized it would change our relationship with picture taking. Still, 1999 cameras were low resolution, expensive, clunky, and had few features. We loved them anyway, while acknowledging their flaws. We had great hopes that, over time, they would mature into the healthy adult they are today.
And so it is with eLearning.
Online learning is entering puberty. We dotted on it as a child and saw in it such potential as an adult. Too many of us, though, continue to ignore this child’s flaws, even to the point of criticizing those who dare to point them out. But children, disruptive innovations in their own right, become established sustaining innovations, growing and changing each year, up to and through adulthood.
As a teenager, eLearning’s limitations are coming to light. Many courses tend to be text-centric; their assessments primarily multiple-choice; and their activities rarely going beyond knowledge and comprehension. That doesn’t mean I don’t love this child. I do and I see the incredible potential this child has. However, if I want eLearning to mature, it’s my job as a parent, it’s our job as a village, to help this child mature. We all have a stake in this child’s future. How, or if, online learning matures depends on the type of parent we choose to be. A parent that continues to spoil the child, discounting flaws and turning a blind side to facts; or one that loves the child but sets the conditions and creates an environment for the child to grow and mature.
As one of the village members watching eLearning transition into adolescence, I see its great potential to be an incredible adult. I believe formative assessments will actually determine a student’s path through the content, reteaching using different examples or pedagogies and providing multiple learning paths until a student becomes proficient. I believe courses will have challenging, authentic activities, requiring students to create, analyze, and evaluate. I believe courses will include a combination of text, short lectures, rich media, interactive simulations, and online discussions. I believe that multiple-choice tests will be just one type of assessment in future courses and that assessment types will be determined by the skill being assessed.
More importantly, I believe our eLearning adolescent won’t reach adulthood unless we create the conditions for its transition into adulthood.That includes being frank about both it’s strengths AND its problems.
Disclaimer: Before moving to the Stanislaus County Office of Education, I taught English, Drama, and Computers at a junior high for 20 years. Each of those 20 years brought many examples of children transitioning through childhood into puberty. Some children were better prepared for the transition; some were ready for adulthood; and some, I suspected, would take longer to “bloom.” Still, my job as a teacher was to help my students, my customers, mature into responsible adults. Yes, teenagers have flaws: they’re awkward; they’re trying out friends; and they’re shedding childhood. They’re not perfect, though. We, teachers and parents, do them great harm by not helping them prepare for adulthood.
And so it is with online learning.
It takes a village to raise a child.
Get with it.
Here at CLRN, we’re beginning to review the California eLearning Census data in preparation for a white paper to be released late summer. To augment current census numbers, we’re beginning to inport virtual school attendance data from California’s annual school census taken each October and released in late spring. The California Basic Educational Data System results for all schools can be accessed through DataQuest, which is where we found virtual student populations for the 14 virtual schools that didn’t participate in the eLearning Census. Being a snapshot taken in early October, it doesn’t reflect growth during the school year. For example, the October count for California Virtual Academy @ Los Angeles was 4897 while the spring eLearning Census report was 5100. Still, CBEDS & DataQuest allow us to track student attendance over time, which is the focus for this brief post and a taste for what you can expect in the white paper.
Let’s start with how attendance has increased at the 10 California Virtual Academies, all independent direct-funded charter schools managed by K12, Inc. Attendance in 2009/10 was 10,379, which grew to 11,256 in 2010/11, an 8% increase. This year, the Academies report 13,125 students, representing a year-to-year growth of 17%. The chart below tracks their growth.
Compare the above chart with those below representing growth at the Rocketship schools, direct-funded charters emphasizing the Rocketship rotation method of blended learning. Of the five Rocketship schools, only two have been open three years. Their year-to-year growth was 10% in 2010/11 and 12% this year.
Three Rocketship schools have been operating at least two years, and the chart below represents their 17% year-to-year growth, which is identical to California Virtual Academy growth. Being a two-year chart, though, skews the growth line.
How do online courses meet students’ needs? Why should every high school offer online courses to their students? One answer can be found in this letter to the Modesto Bee found in my local paper last week.
Modesto Bee
Letter to the Editor
May 17, 2012
I’ve been doing some reflection over the last couple of weeks as graduation approaches. I am a senior and have spent the last four years of my life attending Johansen High School. I was a cheerleader, an AP student, involved in many different clubs and have held various leadership positions. I believe that I received a very good education from Modesto City Schools.
As we draw closer to the end, the school would like the current students to go and promote Johansen to several different middle schools in an effort to boost the enrollment for next year. The problem is, the district is so busy cutting programs and extracurricular activities that students are choosing to attend other high schools.
I recently learned that speech and debate, drama and journalism have all been cut from next year’s schedule due to lack of funding. So what happens now? French 4 and Spanish 4 have not been offered at Johansen for quite some time now, and other higher-level classes may be next on the chopping block. As more classes are cut, it’s no wonder Johansen students are choosing to take their education elsewhere.
MOLLY SESSA
Modesto
This high school, and many others across California have had to reduce low enrollment courses due to years of budget cuts. School Districts can’t afford a French 4 or an AP Calculus course if they can’t find 30 (or more likely 40) students who desire the same course. You can’t blame districts for fighting to stay alive fiscally. However, you can/must blame them for being shortsighted. Cutting language and high-level academic courses pushes away the very students who raise your API score, who graduate to prestigious colleges, and who will take their ADA to a school that will meet their needs.
Online learning, particularly the Self-Blend, is an easy way for districts to offer orphan courses to students. Don’t have 40 students for Spanish 4? No problem. Provide the five students who DO need it an online option. You’ll keep your ADA as well.
