On the topic of how to manage online teachers, I appreciated how the article "Evaluating Online Teachers is Largely a Virtual Task" explained that there is a lot more data to examine, in a more timely fashion, than for traditional teachers. I wonder how TC teachers who teach online classes are evaluated. I know that we do course evaluations at the end of both online and face-to-face courses so I assume that is part of it, but I wonder whether the evaluations differ in other aspects depending on the forum. The article also noted that administrators can take steps to immediately help teachers fix the problems they may be experiencing and how much oversight is enough or too much?
In "Managing Teachers You Can't See", the article noted that most online teachers work remotely which creates a unique challenge for supervisors, but this is very similar to corporate organizations that allow individuals to work from home. I was part of a program at Sun Microsystems known as iWork where I worked from home or other remote offices most of the time. Many years, I had supervisors who were not based in the same location as I, and evaluation never seemed to be a problem. I think the same applies to online teachers and their supervisors.
I really like how the article notes that customer service is a big priority at virtual schools (FLVS in this case) because the student is the customer (or the consumer really) and everything we do as teachers needs to focus on that, just as it would in the corporate or retail worlds. FLVS also mentions that accountability is critical for online teachers so they ensure students success. I wonder how different this is than in traditional schools where teachers "pass" students because of underlying politics. Everybody wants students to succeed, and accountability is not specific to virtual schools. They also mention that the leadership team checks in with instructors on a daily basis. I think this seems like too often. It is a very "hands-on" approach. Personally, I thrive in an environment where the manager is "hands-off", understanding that success ensures a continued need for my skills.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Week 5 Reflection: Teacher Professional Development
Professional Development:
Of the 6 readings for this week, I chose the following three to review:
Going Virtual! Unique Needs and Challenges of K-12 Online Teachers
I was found each of these to be genuinely interesting for various reasons. In the first article, I was initially surprised that only 2% of respondents were brand new teachers, but in looking at some of the virtual schools it seems like a minimum of 3 years teaching face to face is generally a requirement so that makes more sense. I was also surprised to learn that virtual school teachers report professional development in Web 2.0 technologies as less important than brick and mortar teachers do. Maybe because they already feel comfortable with them? I’m not sure though since only 3 comments by teachers reflected a desire for social networking as a collaboration method with other professionals. Similarly teachers in this school think it less important to “incorporate internet resources in course content” than their counterparts, although they are also less like to develop their own content.
With regard to facilitation, the study noted that more experienced teachers placed a higher importance on classroom management strategies, while newer teachers though innovative thinking and promoting student reflection were more important. My initial instinct was that this might be a factor of “burnout” by more experienced teachers. Beginning teachers are generally more excited by the prospect of their new career, the difference they can make and have a bit of “not knowing what they don’t know” going on as well. Burnout of experienced teachers might also account for their lower rating regarding community building activities. I also noticed that newer teachers place more emphasis on team teaching, which makes sense since this is a focus area being discussed in pre-service programs these days.
From an assessment standpoint, the big point that stood out for me was that across the board participants though peer review was least important. In corporate, being able to give and receive peer review is a large portion of individual’s evaluations with regard to promotions and raises. I would think that this is a skill we want to develop within students.
I surprised to see very few comments with regard to concerns about copyright/plagiarism given all the hype about it and online learning. I also noted that across program model and online teaching experience levels, the “need and challenge” listed in every single category was time management. I have to wonder if this just isn’t a problem for everyone these days in this high-interaction, fast-paced digital economy.
Professional Development for Online Teachers
I really enjoyed reading this article, and not just because it was written by our own professor, but because the distinctions listed really cleared up some of the more confusing topics for me, especially around virtual courses vs. virtual classrooms. I though the comment about creating courses that meet standards while still allowing for the “imprint of the individual teacher” was really on the mark. How else would courses be distinguished from one another?
I’m still a bit disturbed by the virtual schools that insist that teachers have 3 years experience in traditional classrooms. On the one hand, I understand that they are hoping to rely on that experience to transition to this new platform delivery but in this economy when there are no (or few) teaching jobs available in traditional schools and an excess of high quality teachers (many with online learning experience), do schools really want to be that strict?
With regard to ongoing professional development, I think it is insightful that FLVS sets annual goals and created PD activities to meet the goals. This is just like what happens in corporate for promotions, recognizing an individual’s growth. I’m also going to check out COVE which seems a lot like Twitter and/or Facebook groups dedicated to educators in similar fields.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that VHS has created a “Web-extended classroom” helping face-to-face classrooms integrate virtual resources. Should everyone be doing this?
Online Professional Development Models
I decided to listen to this webinar as my third selection to make use of an alternative mode of instruction and because I thought it would be good to hear how schools present their PD models. There are some similarities and differences among the schools.
I think all of these resources will be a great reference to have in my pocket when I eventually get a teaching job (online or face-to-face).
Of the 6 readings for this week, I chose the following three to review:
- Going Virtual! Unique Needs and Challenges of K-12 Online Teachers
- Professional Development for Online Teachers by our very own Susan Lowes.
- Online Professional Development Models (Webinar)
Going Virtual! Unique Needs and Challenges of K-12 Online Teachers
I was found each of these to be genuinely interesting for various reasons. In the first article, I was initially surprised that only 2% of respondents were brand new teachers, but in looking at some of the virtual schools it seems like a minimum of 3 years teaching face to face is generally a requirement so that makes more sense. I was also surprised to learn that virtual school teachers report professional development in Web 2.0 technologies as less important than brick and mortar teachers do. Maybe because they already feel comfortable with them? I’m not sure though since only 3 comments by teachers reflected a desire for social networking as a collaboration method with other professionals. Similarly teachers in this school think it less important to “incorporate internet resources in course content” than their counterparts, although they are also less like to develop their own content.
With regard to facilitation, the study noted that more experienced teachers placed a higher importance on classroom management strategies, while newer teachers though innovative thinking and promoting student reflection were more important. My initial instinct was that this might be a factor of “burnout” by more experienced teachers. Beginning teachers are generally more excited by the prospect of their new career, the difference they can make and have a bit of “not knowing what they don’t know” going on as well. Burnout of experienced teachers might also account for their lower rating regarding community building activities. I also noticed that newer teachers place more emphasis on team teaching, which makes sense since this is a focus area being discussed in pre-service programs these days.
From an assessment standpoint, the big point that stood out for me was that across the board participants though peer review was least important. In corporate, being able to give and receive peer review is a large portion of individual’s evaluations with regard to promotions and raises. I would think that this is a skill we want to develop within students.
I surprised to see very few comments with regard to concerns about copyright/plagiarism given all the hype about it and online learning. I also noted that across program model and online teaching experience levels, the “need and challenge” listed in every single category was time management. I have to wonder if this just isn’t a problem for everyone these days in this high-interaction, fast-paced digital economy.
Professional Development for Online Teachers
I really enjoyed reading this article, and not just because it was written by our own professor, but because the distinctions listed really cleared up some of the more confusing topics for me, especially around virtual courses vs. virtual classrooms. I though the comment about creating courses that meet standards while still allowing for the “imprint of the individual teacher” was really on the mark. How else would courses be distinguished from one another?
I’m still a bit disturbed by the virtual schools that insist that teachers have 3 years experience in traditional classrooms. On the one hand, I understand that they are hoping to rely on that experience to transition to this new platform delivery but in this economy when there are no (or few) teaching jobs available in traditional schools and an excess of high quality teachers (many with online learning experience), do schools really want to be that strict?
With regard to ongoing professional development, I think it is insightful that FLVS sets annual goals and created PD activities to meet the goals. This is just like what happens in corporate for promotions, recognizing an individual’s growth. I’m also going to check out COVE which seems a lot like Twitter and/or Facebook groups dedicated to educators in similar fields.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that VHS has created a “Web-extended classroom” helping face-to-face classrooms integrate virtual resources. Should everyone be doing this?
Online Professional Development Models
I decided to listen to this webinar as my third selection to make use of an alternative mode of instruction and because I thought it would be good to hear how schools present their PD models. There are some similarities and differences among the schools.
- Wisconsin eSchool network provides just-in-time training, an “online facilitation” course for teachers, an “investigating K-12 online learning” course for administrators and the general public, and self-paced ongoing “build-on” modules for teachers. These seemed to be comprehensive enough but not that inspiring.
- Boise State University offers two online Masters program for educational technology, 3 advanced certificates and a K-12 program. The K-12 program offers a class called Teaching Online in the K12 Environment using Adobe Connect, an Advanced Online Teaching Methods course and a choice of numerous electives (Online Course Design, Multimedia, YouTube for Educators, Technology-Supported PBL, Online Gaming, and Teaching and Learning in Second Life). They also offer customized training. They are also the ones doing research having produced the “Going Virtual” series of studies. This program seemed very comprehensive and I would definitely like to investigate these options further.
- The Virtual High School Global Consortium offers a 6 credit NetCourse Instructional Methodologies course (10 weeks, all online) for its global teacher network. They learn pedagogical methods and adapt an existing VHS course to teach. They also have a 12 credit Teachers Learning Conference (22 weeks) where teachers write an online course from scratch. I love this idea although it was unclear whether this was an online or in-person class. Finally, they have ProGrEss for ongoing PD (Professional Growth Essentials) with a focus on integrating web 2.0 tools in online courses which I’d be interested in learning more about. They also have a practicum teachers as part of a 6 week course called Become an Online Teacher – 21st Century Teaching Best Practices designed for traditional classroom teachers.
- The EDC (edc.org) has an EdTech Leaders Online program where they offer a teacher PD and virtual schools program which includes an online facilitator class, an online course developer class and over 60 online workshops. The online facilitators course includes integration of Web 2.0 tools for learning. They also offer an Advanced Facilition and Web 2.0 course. More information can be found at edtechleaders.org. I will check this out as well.
I think all of these resources will be a great reference to have in my pocket when I eventually get a teaching job (online or face-to-face).
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Week 5 Reflection: The TPI & Online Teacher Quality Standards
The TPI:
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory was a new and useful tool that was introduced to me this week. I really enjoyed taking the tool and thinking about my own personal philosophy of teaching. Not only do I see this as a useful tool now in the beginning of my new career (and hopefully helping me to write my philosophy for my portfolio) but I see this as something useful to refer back to over time and compare my results as I become a more experienced teacher. I think that this is yet another item to store in my professional development toolbag.
Quality Standards for Online Teachers:
The iNACOL has published “National Standards for Quality Online Teaching” which is basically a rubric for a number of criteria that online teachers should have. They borrowed work from SREB (the Southern Regional Education Board) and a few other locations. Overall I thought the list was pretty comprehensive but I’m still not quite clear on exactly how these would be implemented within various virtual schooling environments. Are they to be used as a professional development guideline for teachers, an evaluation of existing teachers, or as criteria for hiring teachers? Maybe the answer is all of the above. The one thing this article did highlight for me was the importance of identifying criteria that will eventually result in student achievement. I also noted that many, although certainly not all, of the criteria listed should apply to traditional face-to-face teachers as well.
The biggest AH-HA moment for me on this topic was actually in the article entitled “Online Teaches: What can SREB States Do to Ensure Competence and Quality?” Finally, an article that reflected what I had been thinking: “It may not be appropriate for instructors who teach in classrooms without borders” to have certification in that state! Exactly! I fully support the idea that virtual schools should “remove, modify or adapt their out-of-state teacher requirements” in order to attract the highest quality teachers regardless of geographic location. Perhaps, as the article articulates, there ought to be a national online certification for teachers based on their relevant experience and applicable training.
I did a quick look at some of the SREB schools and did not see evidence of this recommendation having taken effect, but I will definitely keep looking in the hopes of some day becoming an online teacher myself!
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory was a new and useful tool that was introduced to me this week. I really enjoyed taking the tool and thinking about my own personal philosophy of teaching. Not only do I see this as a useful tool now in the beginning of my new career (and hopefully helping me to write my philosophy for my portfolio) but I see this as something useful to refer back to over time and compare my results as I become a more experienced teacher. I think that this is yet another item to store in my professional development toolbag.
Quality Standards for Online Teachers:
The iNACOL has published “National Standards for Quality Online Teaching” which is basically a rubric for a number of criteria that online teachers should have. They borrowed work from SREB (the Southern Regional Education Board) and a few other locations. Overall I thought the list was pretty comprehensive but I’m still not quite clear on exactly how these would be implemented within various virtual schooling environments. Are they to be used as a professional development guideline for teachers, an evaluation of existing teachers, or as criteria for hiring teachers? Maybe the answer is all of the above. The one thing this article did highlight for me was the importance of identifying criteria that will eventually result in student achievement. I also noted that many, although certainly not all, of the criteria listed should apply to traditional face-to-face teachers as well.
The biggest AH-HA moment for me on this topic was actually in the article entitled “Online Teaches: What can SREB States Do to Ensure Competence and Quality?” Finally, an article that reflected what I had been thinking: “It may not be appropriate for instructors who teach in classrooms without borders” to have certification in that state! Exactly! I fully support the idea that virtual schools should “remove, modify or adapt their out-of-state teacher requirements” in order to attract the highest quality teachers regardless of geographic location. Perhaps, as the article articulates, there ought to be a national online certification for teachers based on their relevant experience and applicable training.
I did a quick look at some of the SREB schools and did not see evidence of this recommendation having taken effect, but I will definitely keep looking in the hopes of some day becoming an online teacher myself!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Week 4 Reflection
Blog reflection: What did you learn this week that struck you as particularly important or interesting? Has your thinking changed as a result of what you learned this week?
On Charter and For-profit Virtual Schools:
Once again this week I examined the other virtual schools that my peers had profiled (Wetpaint WIKI, Google Spreadsheet) but this time I was contrasting these schools more to their State virtual school peers than against each other. Once of the main reasons for doing so is there is such wide variety among the various charter schools and for-profit schools that it is difficult to compare them. However, when you think about a students choice there are really very few to choose from: a state virtual school in their state, a charter virtual school in their state, a for-profit run virtual school in their state, or one of the few virtual schools that allows non-resident students to enroll. So, the big learning nugget for me this week was that while it is great to know what exists across the country (and it might be beneficial to know this as a source of future ideas), actual implementation and use of online learning will be restricted by the options available in the state where I am going to be teaching. From the educator perspective, however, I will definitely be keeping an eye open for great online teaching ideas and possible even opportunities for me to teach online in the future.
On Instructional Design:
I enjoyed examining the different courses offered by the two schools that I have been exploring although I have to say that I was quite disappointed that there were no demo courses available for preview. It makes me question how parents and students would be able to make well-educated informed decisions about choosing to enroll in these schools.
From what I was able to cull from the school's website and the course descriptions, I have discovered that while more is better than less, organization is better than more. In other words, while having lots of information about a course is good, it is much better to well organized information that clearly illustrates what students will be required to do, what learning objectives the course topics will cover and what results the course will inspire. I also think that it's important to have standards. I'm not talking about educational standards for each subject but rather standards that all online courses should comply with. This includes not only the standards mentioned below, but standards for core content provided on the schools' websites with regard to course description, syllabus, assignments, etc...
On Quality Standards:
Finally, I've reviewed the document by NACOL called National Standards of Quality for Online Courses and think that is a great start. I love the idea that online courses could be compared using these national standards so that students can make educated choices about the courses they wish to enroll in. I also think that having this list of standards will eventually help improve the design of online courses as they strive to meet these challenges. My only complaint is that for category 'F' (21st century skills), it's a rather generic criteria seemingly thrown in there at the end. Unlike the criteria in all the other sections this one is catch-all of everything '21st century'. For such an important area, shouldn't we have more specific criteria? (Especially since the article notes that it used the Partnership for 21st century skills as a reference, and I know for a fact that their standards are much more comprehensive). Let's see if we can't start thinking outside the box beyond the traditional discussion boards and internet chat and start relying on some Web 2.0 technologies for online courses. Wikis, Blogs, Skype and more will provide even more interaction and collaboration for online learning of the future.
On Charter and For-profit Virtual Schools:
Once again this week I examined the other virtual schools that my peers had profiled (Wetpaint WIKI, Google Spreadsheet) but this time I was contrasting these schools more to their State virtual school peers than against each other. Once of the main reasons for doing so is there is such wide variety among the various charter schools and for-profit schools that it is difficult to compare them. However, when you think about a students choice there are really very few to choose from: a state virtual school in their state, a charter virtual school in their state, a for-profit run virtual school in their state, or one of the few virtual schools that allows non-resident students to enroll. So, the big learning nugget for me this week was that while it is great to know what exists across the country (and it might be beneficial to know this as a source of future ideas), actual implementation and use of online learning will be restricted by the options available in the state where I am going to be teaching. From the educator perspective, however, I will definitely be keeping an eye open for great online teaching ideas and possible even opportunities for me to teach online in the future.
On Instructional Design:
I enjoyed examining the different courses offered by the two schools that I have been exploring although I have to say that I was quite disappointed that there were no demo courses available for preview. It makes me question how parents and students would be able to make well-educated informed decisions about choosing to enroll in these schools.
From what I was able to cull from the school's website and the course descriptions, I have discovered that while more is better than less, organization is better than more. In other words, while having lots of information about a course is good, it is much better to well organized information that clearly illustrates what students will be required to do, what learning objectives the course topics will cover and what results the course will inspire. I also think that it's important to have standards. I'm not talking about educational standards for each subject but rather standards that all online courses should comply with. This includes not only the standards mentioned below, but standards for core content provided on the schools' websites with regard to course description, syllabus, assignments, etc...
On Quality Standards:
Finally, I've reviewed the document by NACOL called National Standards of Quality for Online Courses and think that is a great start. I love the idea that online courses could be compared using these national standards so that students can make educated choices about the courses they wish to enroll in. I also think that having this list of standards will eventually help improve the design of online courses as they strive to meet these challenges. My only complaint is that for category 'F' (21st century skills), it's a rather generic criteria seemingly thrown in there at the end. Unlike the criteria in all the other sections this one is catch-all of everything '21st century'. For such an important area, shouldn't we have more specific criteria? (Especially since the article notes that it used the Partnership for 21st century skills as a reference, and I know for a fact that their standards are much more comprehensive). Let's see if we can't start thinking outside the box beyond the traditional discussion boards and internet chat and start relying on some Web 2.0 technologies for online courses. Wikis, Blogs, Skype and more will provide even more interaction and collaboration for online learning of the future.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Week 3 Reflection
Blog reflection: What did you learn this week that struck you as particularly important or interesting? Has your thinking changed as a result of what you learned this week?
On State Virtual Schools:
One of the big ah-ha moments this week was when I began examining the other virtual schools that my peers had profiled (Wetpaint WIKI, Google Spreadsheet) and realized what a wide distinction there is among different schools and different states. There is clearly no standardization today for the types of offerings, the funding sources, the target audiences or even though teaching methodologies. The other point, which I have mentioned before, is that this is clearly a State by State initiative. While providing a free public education to all is a national priority, there is no national program for virtual schooling. If there was, or maybe when there is, then more of the benefits of virtual schooling can be realized. Students will truly be able to take virtual courses with any number of “expert” teachers and choose from any number of offerings to meet their own needs.
The Keeping Pace article highlights that one of the main benefits of full-time “multi-district” programs is geographic reach allowing “students to enroll across district lines” but unwritten is that they may enroll across “district lines” within the same State. But not across States.
On Charter and For-Profit Virtual Schools:
I enjoyed researching AccelerateU this week, largely because it is one of only 4 virtual schools identified by NACOL Online Clearinghouse as operating within New York State. Of the four, it was clearly the most comprehensive. However, as I dug deeper, it became apparent that the school is not open to all New York State students but only to certain districts/regions within the state. This seems to be a running theme and it makes me wonder how “fair” virtual schooling is, if it is not available to all students. Are we not offering an equal education for all?
In reading the Authorizing Matters issue briefs (Aug, Sep), I was a bit confused at first, not knowing exactly what an “authorizer” was. But, some of the messages were clear. In August, the section on “For Whom the Mouse Clicks” had me stop and wonder whether I was missing something. E.g. the mention of “high-mobility” students as good candidates for virtual schooling, such as those from military families, makes sense if they can truly stayed enrolled in one program throughout their educational years, but at what school can this happen? What happens when they move to a different State? It seems that equal access to a high quality education can happen regardless of the students location, but in the schools I researched, even the charter or for-profit ones, there still seemed to be a geographic limitation.
I was also surprised that virtual schools do not have more students with disabilities enrolled, and that schools face difficulties with this population. I would have thought a virtual scenario would actually help enhance education for some of these students.
In the September review, I wondered how things like “seat-time” equate to virtual classrooms. I’m not sure what “October count day” is but I don’t see why attendance in a virtual classroom wouldn’t be counted by the amount of participation a student contributes in an asynchronous mode, or the amount of times “attended” in a synchronous mode. I do agree that educational technology requires real expertise and resources in these new virtual schools, as this is largely the infrastructure of the school vs. bricks and mortar. Finally, I think it was an enlightening point that the authors made that much of a virtual school is still “oddly unvirtual”. There are always overhead costs involved and virtual schools are no exception.
Lastly, the question of funding virtual schools was an area that I had not really considered to this point. I’m still not sure exactly how funding works even in the traditional public schools, except that it comes largely from taxes. I recognize that virtual courses, especially those that could – in the future – cross state lines, would introduce a wrinkle into the funding aspect. However, it is something that really does need to be addressed. I learned that principals feel that they have some lack of control in this situation and this is something that will require education for principals, as well as teachers and other administrators, to overcome. I also understand the logic behind not passing on costs to students who take virtual courses to fill their “normal academic load” but I don’t agree that courses which are overload should be charged to the students. What if these courses are being overloaded to accelerate graduation, or because the student is not being challenged in their traditional school. These students shouldn’t suffer because their traditional program is not meeting their needs. I’m also not sure that I agree with the concern that former home-schoolers impact public education because a) how is it any different than a home-schooler or private school student who transfers to a traditional public school and b) why should they not be entitled to the same benefits? Finally, in the case of KVHS, they mention that they hire Kentucky-certified teachers to “support web-based delivery” of content they purchase from providers. This made me wonder whether the teachers are then really just faciliators of learning, and if so, isn’t that what we are asking traditional teachers to do as well? What is the direction that teaching is going in? How will it change over time as more and more courses are offered online?
On State Virtual Schools:
One of the big ah-ha moments this week was when I began examining the other virtual schools that my peers had profiled (Wetpaint WIKI, Google Spreadsheet) and realized what a wide distinction there is among different schools and different states. There is clearly no standardization today for the types of offerings, the funding sources, the target audiences or even though teaching methodologies. The other point, which I have mentioned before, is that this is clearly a State by State initiative. While providing a free public education to all is a national priority, there is no national program for virtual schooling. If there was, or maybe when there is, then more of the benefits of virtual schooling can be realized. Students will truly be able to take virtual courses with any number of “expert” teachers and choose from any number of offerings to meet their own needs.
The Keeping Pace article highlights that one of the main benefits of full-time “multi-district” programs is geographic reach allowing “students to enroll across district lines” but unwritten is that they may enroll across “district lines” within the same State. But not across States.
On Charter and For-Profit Virtual Schools:
I enjoyed researching AccelerateU this week, largely because it is one of only 4 virtual schools identified by NACOL Online Clearinghouse as operating within New York State. Of the four, it was clearly the most comprehensive. However, as I dug deeper, it became apparent that the school is not open to all New York State students but only to certain districts/regions within the state. This seems to be a running theme and it makes me wonder how “fair” virtual schooling is, if it is not available to all students. Are we not offering an equal education for all?
In reading the Authorizing Matters issue briefs (Aug, Sep), I was a bit confused at first, not knowing exactly what an “authorizer” was. But, some of the messages were clear. In August, the section on “For Whom the Mouse Clicks” had me stop and wonder whether I was missing something. E.g. the mention of “high-mobility” students as good candidates for virtual schooling, such as those from military families, makes sense if they can truly stayed enrolled in one program throughout their educational years, but at what school can this happen? What happens when they move to a different State? It seems that equal access to a high quality education can happen regardless of the students location, but in the schools I researched, even the charter or for-profit ones, there still seemed to be a geographic limitation.
I was also surprised that virtual schools do not have more students with disabilities enrolled, and that schools face difficulties with this population. I would have thought a virtual scenario would actually help enhance education for some of these students.
In the September review, I wondered how things like “seat-time” equate to virtual classrooms. I’m not sure what “October count day” is but I don’t see why attendance in a virtual classroom wouldn’t be counted by the amount of participation a student contributes in an asynchronous mode, or the amount of times “attended” in a synchronous mode. I do agree that educational technology requires real expertise and resources in these new virtual schools, as this is largely the infrastructure of the school vs. bricks and mortar. Finally, I think it was an enlightening point that the authors made that much of a virtual school is still “oddly unvirtual”. There are always overhead costs involved and virtual schools are no exception.
Lastly, the question of funding virtual schools was an area that I had not really considered to this point. I’m still not sure exactly how funding works even in the traditional public schools, except that it comes largely from taxes. I recognize that virtual courses, especially those that could – in the future – cross state lines, would introduce a wrinkle into the funding aspect. However, it is something that really does need to be addressed. I learned that principals feel that they have some lack of control in this situation and this is something that will require education for principals, as well as teachers and other administrators, to overcome. I also understand the logic behind not passing on costs to students who take virtual courses to fill their “normal academic load” but I don’t agree that courses which are overload should be charged to the students. What if these courses are being overloaded to accelerate graduation, or because the student is not being challenged in their traditional school. These students shouldn’t suffer because their traditional program is not meeting their needs. I’m also not sure that I agree with the concern that former home-schoolers impact public education because a) how is it any different than a home-schooler or private school student who transfers to a traditional public school and b) why should they not be entitled to the same benefits? Finally, in the case of KVHS, they mention that they hire Kentucky-certified teachers to “support web-based delivery” of content they purchase from providers. This made me wonder whether the teachers are then really just faciliators of learning, and if so, isn’t that what we are asking traditional teachers to do as well? What is the direction that teaching is going in? How will it change over time as more and more courses are offered online?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
