Online Teaching, Online Learning: A Cost Effective Choice for States?

A Forum — July 21, 2003

Background

No Child Left Behind requires that all students be given access to first class learning opportunities. Yet a slowing economy has led to leaner school budgets. Consequently, administrators and state policymakers have been searching for innovative ways to lower costs while increasing student achievement. Online learning is one potentially cost-effective technique for raising student achievement that states are exploring. Currently, 20 states that have or are developing statewide online education programs. And, as of 2002, 25 states allow for cyber charter schools and 32 states have e-learning initiatives underway. At this forum, panel members discussed their experiences with implementing and managing online learning, shared models of online education, and presented recommendations to help policymakers at the national, state, and local levels foster effective implementation of quality online teaching and learning initiatives.

Forum Summary

Liz Pape is CEO of VHS, a collaborative of high schools across the U.S. and abroad that offers NetCourses to high school students in member schools. According to Pape, there are now multiple modes of organizing to deliver online learning: statewide initiatives, interstate cooperatives, and consortiums of non-profit and for-profit organizations. Pape identified some of the most obvious benefits to online teaching and learning: students have access to more courses and teachers to more resources; greater equity of resources is possible because access to resources and instruction is no longer “zip-code dependent;” and students can acquire “21st century learning skills” such as working collaboratively, interacting with others from different backgrounds, and independent learning.

Through her experience with VHS, Pape has learned that there are some issues associated with online learning that do need to be addressed: First, we need to think carefully about what good online teaching and learning look like. We then need to develop online course design and delivery standards and establish expectations for teacher performance. We should consider curriculum standards and how we will specify what children should learn, given that children in online courses may be from states with different standards. We need to think about professional development on the topic of online teaching for teachers and think about how it can be incorporated into the education of both preservice and experienced teachers. Third, we need to think carefully about funding issues, to consider how various types of programs should be funded and who should be responsible for providing this funding.

Suellen Reed, Superintendent of Public Education for Indiana, said her state has made a lot of progress implementing virtual education. They now have the capability to interact in a way that is very exciting and can offer things that they were not able to in regular schools. For instance, No Child Left Behind requires that teachers be highly qualified; with virtual education, teachers can now take professional development courses online to become highly qualified. This reduces travel time and allows a flexible schedule for teachers. Principals, too, have access to professional development opportunities online; in that forum, it is possible to communicate things they need to know to perform their roles well and for them to interact with one another. Online learning also helps teachers meet the needs of special learners and ESOL students by offering specialized online testing opportunities. Reed observed that through such programs as these, the state is “using computers in lots of ways they have never done before.”

John Bailey, Director of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education, spoke about distance learning activities at the national level and the Department’s future plans for online education. The Department’s strong support for online education can be traced to Rodney Paige’s positive experiences with this form of learning in Houston. He saw the benefits that it offered in reaching at risk students and attracting home schoolers back into the public school system. Paige believes that online learning will also help the nation’s schools achieve the primary goal of the No Child Left Behind legislation: to offer quality education to all students. For example, in rural areas where many students have limited opportunities and access to rich instructional resources, online learning uses technological resources to broaden the academic opportunities available to them.

Bailey identified three specific ways that technology can be used to enhance education for students: It expands the a) course offerings available to students; 2) professional development opportunities for teachers; and 3) the types of experiences that students have access to. Students are able to speak directly with experts and authors, take virtual field trips, and interact with other students throughout the world, all experiences that would be limited in yesterday’s classrooms.

According to Bailey, currently, we don’t have a good picture of how many teachers and students are using online learning. We need to conduct an accurate statistical survey (such as the one the Education Commission of the States is currently conducting) to collect this information. There are also policy issues that arise from the spread on online instruction that we need to address. First, for example, how do we ensure the quality of this form of instruction? Second, how can we address existing federal and state barriers to online instruction? And, third, how can funding issues related to online learning be resolved? These policy questions will become even more urgent as the line between traditional versus online learning blurs.

Andrew Zucker, Associate Director of the Education Development Center (EDC), noted that the large turnout for this forum “demonstrates that there is a lot of interest around e-learning.” Policymakers, too, are interested because “they are looking for levers they can use to change the status quo.” Zucker believes that e-learning is changing the “grammar of schooling, introducing new ways of educating, and challenging standard conceptions of schooling.

Recently, EDC conducted research evaluating virtual high schools. The major finding was that these schools are “a major success story.” Researchers heard repeatedly from teachers, students, and principals that online learning is a way to offer opportunities that would not otherwise be available. Researchers also found that there are limitations to this form of learning: for instance, dropout and stopout rates are higher and today’s technology has certain technical limitations. The promise of lower costs that some forecast is also premature; online instruction has many of the expenses associated with regular learning as well as additional costs specific to it. Regardless, Zucker said, further growth in online schooling is likely in the coming years.

Zucker issued the following recommendations for policymakers: a) develop national online course standards for design, delivery, and evaluation purposes; b) develop national standards, skills definitions, and professional development requirements for online teachers; c) revise existing funding models so as to not disadvantage online education; d) develop different budget models that can be used to support online education; e) develop guidelines and funding models to assure access of online courses to all students; f) conduct state-wide research on state VHS initiatives; and g) develop publicly monitored accountability standards for all online course providers funded with public dollars. He recommended that the federal government pay for high quality research, evaluation, and statistics about online schools, and develop new online tools to complement those developed by the private sector. He closed by noting that virtual learning poses challenges to states, including possible modification of their curriculum standards in light of national course design, as well as the development of teaching reciprocity agreements in light of cross-state online course delivery.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org