#blog: eLearning Days: New Digital Learning Collaborative report analyzes policy and guidance of this growing practice
by Kathryn Kennedy
Cross post from the Digital Learning Collaborative Blog
Early winter storms have hit multiple states already this year resulting in a wave of headlines reporting on school closings and a shift to online instruction until schools reopen. Is this practice growing? How many states allow schools to shift instruction to online? And how do state agencies ensure that online instruction, used in this way, is effective? This report explores the increasing use of online “snow days” and the use of digital learning to avoid interruptions in instruction. The report defines eLearning Days as those that:
explicitly allow districts to use online resources and instruction for students in traditional schools, to continue instruction during an interruption in physical attendance that affects most or all students,
allow such instruction to count towards attendance and funding, and
are based on the district meeting certain requirements that vary significantly by state.
The report finds that a dozen states have policies to allow eLearning Days: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. An additional four states (Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, and Virginia) have at least one district using a waiver or other means to implement such days. The report includes links to policy as well as eLearning day resources developed by states, districts, and schools.
State guidance and district implementation guides can assist policymakers and practitioners in many areas including but not limited to:
teacher preparation,
student expectations and training,
parents/guardians expectations and training,
students with special needs, and
communication expectations and requirements.
The report provides the first national scan of eLearning Day issues and covers many of the details to be addressed in planning for eLearning days. Experts stress the need for extensive planning. Few of these issues can be addressed in a short period of time, particularly those that entail working time and conditions, or other issues in employment contracts. In addition, students, parents, and teachers have to become comfortable with instructional practices during eLearning days, which is likely to take time. Some schools, including those in other countries, include a practice eLearning day in their planning to have everyone learn the process with plenty of preparation time. The implementation of eLearning days is still in an early stage. As more schools implement such days, we expect further findings to emerge regarding both pitfalls and best practices. To learn more, and to explore state-by-state policies and practice, download the full report at the DLC website.
#blog: Are we too quick to judge innovation grant findings?
by Kathryn Kennedy
Cross post from the Digital Learning Collaborative Blog
A recent column from The Hechinger Report shared findings from U.S. Department of Education’s innovation grants and what Hechinger calls “the ‘dirty secret.’” These grants were created to boost the economy after the 2008 recession and served as a “first test of using rigorous scientific evidence as a way of issuing grants in education.” Those programs that had a concept that was well-proven were issued $25-50 million while programs who did not have an evidence-based concept were given $5 million or less to help build that base. Unfortunately, the results show that only 18%, or 12 out of 67, innovations have shown an increase in student achievement. Hechinger notes, many in the field are disappointed at this information while others are sharing they are not surprised. I’m in the latter camp and agree wholeheartedly with three statements that Dr. Saro Mohammed, partner at The Learning Accelerator, made in the Hechinger article that continue to need to be highlighted in our field, especially for those who don’t engage regularly in the research process.
“It’s sometimes hard to prove that an innovation works because of unintended consequences when schools try something new. For example, if a school increases the amount of time that children read independently to try to boost reading achievement, it might shorten the amount of time that students work together collaboratively or engage in a group discussion. ‘Your reading outcomes may turn out to be the same [as the control group], but it’s not because independent reading doesn’t work. It’s because you inadvertently changed something else. Education is super complex. There are lots of moving pieces.’”
“The study results are not all bad. Only one of the 67 programs produced negative results, meaning that kids in the intervention ended up worse off than learning as usual. Most studies ended up producing ‘null’ results and she said that means ‘we’re not doing worse than business as usual. In trying these new things, we’re not doing harm on the academic side.’”
“Learning improvements are slow and incremental. It can take longer than even the three-to-five-year time horizon that the innovation grants allowed.”
We’re grateful to have Dr. Mohammed serving as a guest blogger for the Digital Learning Collaborative, and she’ll be following up on these particular points more specifically in her upcoming posts. In the meantime, what does this report say about our field and how research is used? From the first bullet, when examining whether or not an innovation/intervention works, are we not taking into account the many other moving parts of the education puzzle? Based on the second bullet, are we asking the right questions in our research? Case in point, as the article mentioned, “18 of the studies had to be thrown out because of problems with the data or the study design.” And last but certainly not least, are we expecting too much from a program to show improvement over several school years?
#blog: Online learning for Pre-K children
by Kathryn Kennedy
Cross post from the Digital Learning Collaborative Blog
As a researcher and practitioner in the field of K-12 digital learning, I’m frequently asked by people, “Are kids really learning online as early as Pre-K?” My answer to them is “yes.” It’s happening in part because of a Waterford Institute program called UPSTART (Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow), a nonprofit organization that helps Pre-K students prepare for Kindergarten. Thanks to a 2015 Obama administration grant totaling $11.5 million, UPSTART is bringing early math, reading, and science lessons to four- and five-year-olds. These lessons are 15 minutes a day, and the program is funded at the state, school, or partner level. Families do not have to cover the cost of the program.
The program helps children who have transportation issues or who do not have educational options in their area; children whose families cannot afford paid-for pre-school options; children whose families would rather not send their children to school at such a young age; and children who speak English as a second language or who need additional language support. In their fifth year, the program’s site shares Program Evaluations for every year it has been in place. Additionally, the site highlights case studies of how the program is serving young children. According to a PBS News Hour report, more states including Idaho, Mississippi, Indiana, South Carolina, and Ohio, as well as cities like Philadelphia are incorporating UPSTART. The program is aligned to early learning standards. A total of 1,577 students were served by UPSTART in year 5 of their implementation.
In some instances, UPSTART partners with local organizations to provide learning to children who would normally not have the opportunity to attend Pre-K. As an example, UPSTART partners with the Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development to reach the remote regions of the state, especially those that are high poverty areas. UPSTART program requires parental or guardian support at home while the program supplies the technology and resources that families need to support their children. UPSTART offers coaches that help support children’s learning and their parents’/guardians’ facilitation process.
UPSTART is a robust example of a Pre-K online learning program. In general, Pre-K online learning raises important questions about the logistics of programs at this level. Programs that are offering or that are thinking about offering learning opportunities at the Pre-K level need to think about the following, for example:
What happens if a child does not have a family member to help them do their work?
Is there an access and equity issue with those children who don’t have the support they need at home?
Do children have the technology and connectivity they need to do the work?
Would it make sense for traditional schools or community centers to open up space to support this type of program so that the onus of care is not on the parents or guardians?
Even with these questions in mind, it’s important to consider that programs are attempting to fill an area of non-consumption (as explained by the Christensen Institute). This effort can be an important step forward, if and when done mindfully and intentionally.
Will we see programs like UPSTART continuing to be replicated elsewhere? We will continue to keep an eye on the latest updates in this area and share them out.
#blog: Update on Internet access from Ed Superhighway
by Kathryn Kennedy
Cross post from the Digital Learning Collaborative Blog
Student access to the Internet in K-12 schools has grown rapidly over the past five years. Based on data from the EducationSuperHighway, more than 44 million students have high-speed Internet connections in their learning environments today compared to 4 million just five years ago. As mentioned in the recently published 2018 State of the States report, a call to action from President Obama in 2013 for all public schools in the U.S. to have broadband connectivity has been a driver of this major increase. From there, the FCC updated the E-rate program, providing schools with money to help pay for connectivity. In addition to E-rate, matching funds were provided by select states, and some telecommunications groups helped to give schools deals on their connectivity packages.
Some schools are still not yet connected; these schools typically fall within remote areas. The report found that 4% of schools (1,356 schools) are considered “off grid,” meaning they do not have the fiber optic capabilities that the other 96% of schools have. In these “off grid” schools, the current connectivity options being recommended would not work because the infrastructure at the schools is not robust enough for the base-level connectivity plans, and the plan that would work could not be covered by the funding that is available. This poses an unfortunate access and equity situation that is very much dependent on the location of the student. Continued exploration of funding streams, including grants like the U.S.D.A.’s Community Connect Grant Program, are being considered. There’s a need to level the playing field so that all students have access to the learning they need. The encouraging piece is that the percentage of schools that meet the target connectivity set by the FCC went from 30% to 98% in just five years. With more and more schools focused on improving connectivity, internet providers have had to be transparent about what they can offer, and because schools have options, they have driven up the competition between providers. Consequently, prices have lowered significantly to about $3.26 per-Mbps cost of broadband, as compared to $22 five years ago.
Schools are needing to be creative to get what they need for connectivity, especially in rural and remote areas. A recent report published by the Foundation for Blended and Online Learning, Digital Learning Strategies for Rural America – A scan of policy and practice in K-12 education, shared stories from rural schools and districts, including the common challenges and unique solutions they face on a daily basis. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, a quarter of the population of U.S. K-12 students are living and attending schools in remote areas
Of course, having Internet access is necessary but not nearly sufficient for students to have access to high-quality digital learning opportunities. In our research for the Foundation for Blended and Online Learning study, we found several reports that touched on the idea that online tools and resources could support student access and equity but stopped short of exploring what such online programs might entail. The boxes and wires are necessary, but in many ways the hard work is just getting started when schools get connected.