ONLINE LEARNING IN WASHINGTON STATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Transcription

1 ONLINE LEARNING IN WASHINGTON STATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS by Torrey Morgan A report prepared for the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction June 2009

2 Executive Summary Requested by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), this research surveys Washington State school districts about policies and practices related to online courses. The purpose of the research is to establish a better understanding of the nature of online learning in Washington and to present policy considerations for OSPI. The overarching research question for this project is: What are Washington State school district policies and practices related to online courses? Within this broad question, this research investigates policy and course delivery issues such as student access to online courses, funding, tracking, and quality assurance. While the state sets broad standards and guidelines for online learning, much policy discretion is left to the school districts. For example, districts establish student eligibility for online programs and determine whether or not a student can receive credit for a particular online course. Districts can also set policies that affect the accessibility of online courses, and districts determine how to track, record, and report online courses. Currently, the only information OSPI collects from all districts about online courses is secondary student enrollment. This research is the first time that the state has surveyed districts about online course policies and practices. While there are various types of online courses, for this research, online courses are defined as fully online, meaning that they are delivered entirely via the Internet, with no face to face component. This research consisted of a review of research on online learning in the United States and Washington State, a survey of Washington State school districts, and analysis of these results, including implications and policy considerations. Online learning is a recent phenomenon in K 12 education. Over the past decade, enrollment in online courses has grown. Based on a study of U.S. school district administrators, it is estimated that in , approximately 1.4 percent of K 12 students in the U.S. were enrolled in a fully online course(s). There are various types of online course providers and the three most common types, based on the survey of U.S. district administrators, are postsecondary institutions, state virtual schools within the district s home state, and independent vendors. In Washington State in the school year, districts reported that there were 14,266 secondary students enrolled in one or more online course for credit. Washington State has a state led online initiative called the Digital Learning Commons (DLC), which is a nonprofit organization that offers online courses and resources to schools and students, but does not award credit or diplomas. There are currently ten other statewide online programs run by school districts that serve students statewide.

3 For this research, a survey was designed to collect information from Washington State districts about policies and practices related to online learning. In summary, the survey addressed district policies regarding student access to online courses, types of course providers and types of courses likely to be approved for credit, and other district policies including those related to at risk students, tracking online courses, and funding. Using an online survey tool, the survey was sent to school district technology directors or the equivalent position. An impressive 45 percent of school districts completed the survey. Based on size, location, and online course enrollment, the sample of districts that responded to the survey is similar to the entire population of all districts. The findings reveal significant variations in the policies and practices among school districts related to online courses. Two of the best examples of these variations are highlighted below: 1) Districts gave 54 unique responses to the question of what factors are considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit. 2) About one third of districts distinguish online courses on transcripts, record course completion rates and collect feedback about online courses, and the way in which districts do these things is variable. Other compelling survey findings include: The majority of districts restrict some or all students from taking online courses for credit. Over half of districts respondents indicated that students take online courses for credit from two or more types of course providers. The findings show that there is much variation among districts with regards to the providers from which students take online courses for credit. In all, districts reported 50 different combinations of providers. Among the barriers students face in accessing online courses, cost was cited most often. The findings of this survey raise some concerns, many of which the state plans to address through Substitute Senate Bill 5410, passed in the 2009 legislative session. To complement the efforts put forth in the law, this report provides recommendations to OSPI, summarized below. First, this report shows that given the variations in district policies and practices related to online courses, there is an argument to be made that more guidance from the state may be called for. Second, the report recommends that OPSI consider conducting an assessment of online course providers and online course quality. Third, OSPI should consider regulation on whether students of all grade levels are permitted to take online courses for credit. Fourth, OSPI should consider creating a standard definition of online course completion and to strongly urge districts to record course completion rates. Lastly, OSPI should consider setting a standard for distinguishing online courses on transcripts.

4 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction... 1 Research questions and purpose... 4 Overview of report... 4 Chapter 2: Research Methods... 6 Literature review... 6 Survey of Washington State school districts... 7 Data analysis... 9 Chapter 3: Status of K 12 Online Learning K 12 online learning in the United States K 12 online learning in Washington State Online course enrollment Programs and providers Washington State laws and policies School districts Chapter 4: Findings Respondent characteristics District policies regarding students taking online courses for credit District practices: online course providers, at risk students, and funding District practices: tracking and quality assurance Issues of access to online courses Districts general comments on online courses Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications Variations in survey responses Implications and policy considerations related to findings How the state is addressing some of the concerns Summary of recommendations References Appendix A: Survey... 59

5 Chapter 1: Introduction The Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is the state agency that oversees K 12 public education in Washington. Requested by OSPI, this research project investigates Washington State school district policies and practices related to online courses. Online courses are a type of distance education, a term used to encompass various types of instructional delivery in which the teacher and student are physically separated. Examples of distance education include videoconferencing, correspondence courses, audio based courses, video based courses and online courses. Online courses are delivered via the Internet, through which students view lecture notes, receive and submit assignments, and converse with the instructor and other students. Online courses use various technologies such as interactive online chat, correspondence, webconferencing, and message posting. 1 There are different types of online courses, including fully online courses and online courses that involve varying amounts of face to face instruction. In the literature, online courses are categorized in various ways and are not always consistent with each other. In this research, online courses are defined as fully online, meaning that they are delivered entirely via the Internet, with no face to face component. Only recently have online courses become a part of K 12 education in the United States. Over the past decade, school districts in Washington State and across the country have seen a growth in the numbers of students enrolled in online courses. In the most recent survey of U.S. School District Administrators, 70 percent of responding school districts had one or more student enrolled in a fully online course. Based on this study, it is estimated that in the U.S. 1 OSPI website, 1

6 approximately 665,871 K 12 students were enrolled in fully online courses in the school year, which is 1.4 percent of the entire population of about 49,000,000 public school students in the United States. Enrollment in online courses is estimated to have increased by 47 percent between the and school years. 2 In Washington State, 14,266 secondary students were enrolled in one or more online courses for credit in the school year. 3 Washington has a state led online learning initiative, which funds the Digital Learning Commons, a nonprofit organization that provides online courses and resources across the state. In addition, there are currently ten other statewide online programs run by school districts that serve students statewide, as well as online course offerings from various online course providers. In these scenarios, online course providers can include school districts, district consortiums, postsecondary institutions, and nonprofit and commercial providers. To further complicate matters, students in Washington State can enroll in online courses in other states, including state virtual schools. Limited data The variety of online learning programs and course providers outside of the traditional school district structure is one of the reasons why data on online courses are limited. Data are limited also because of inconsistent terminology and the fact that there are minimal or no requirements in many states to collect data on online students. Similarly, in Washington State, there is very little centralized data at the state level and it is limited in scope. The only data that OSPI collects from all districts about online courses are generated by a few questions in the yearly technology inventory survey. Specifically, the survey asks districts to report numbers of secondary students enrolled in one or more online courses for credit. In all other types other data that districts regularly report to OSPI, online courses are not distinguished from traditional courses. Currently, the State does not have specific reporting requirements for online courses. 2 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 3 Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Education Technology Survey Results

7 Washington State laws that govern online learning include the Alternative Learning Experiences (ALE) Laws and rules that regulate instruction provided under a contract. ALE laws entail that certain requirements must be met for a course to award credit, including instructors that meet the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT requirement), the creation of a written student plan, and monthly progress reviews. In addition, all online programs in Washington are required to be accredited through a state or regional accreditation program. Each school district offering an online program must send OSPI information about the program characteristics to show proper accreditation. 4 While the state sets broad standards and guidelines, much policy discretion is left to the school districts. For example, districts establish student eligibility for online programs and determine whether or not a student can receive credit for a particular online course. Districts can also set policies that affect the accessibility of online courses, such as removing barriers or putting restrictions in place. Districts determine how to track, record, and report online courses. As such, online courses are not necessarily distinguished on transcripts and completion rates are not necessarily tracked. Given this context, to better understand the nature of online learning in Washington State, it is crucial to understand district policies and practices related to online courses. Two large national studies surveyed school districts about online courses, one conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and one by the Sloan Consortium. Both of these studies involved an initial survey and a follow up survey two years later. More information about these studies can be found in Chapter Two of this report. These surveys focused mostly on enrollment characteristics, course characteristics, and general policy issues, but not specific district policies and practices. Information about online course policies and practices has never been collected from Washington State school districts. 4 Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs. 3

8 Research questions and purpose To gather this unknown information about Washington State school districts and to gain a more complete understanding of the nature of online learning in Washington, the overarching research question for this project is: What are Washington State school district policies and practices related to online courses? Within this broad question, this research investigates policy and course delivery issues such as student access to online courses, funding, tracking, course completion, and quality assurance. The purpose of this research is to gather information about district policies and practices related to online courses so that OSPI, as well as other stakeholders, can have more complete information and make better informed decisions in the future. Findings from this research may help OSPI define its role with regards to online course policy, governance, instructional best practice and effective course design. Overview of report The following chapters will describe the methods used for this research, provide a review of K 12 online learning in the United States and Washington State, present the survey findings, and discuss the implications of the findings. Chapter two presents the methods used for this research about online courses, the first of its kind in Washington State. The chapter explains the details of the literature review, the survey method and design, and the limitations present. As requested by OSPI, in order to present a comprehensive background to the issues surrounding online learning, Chapter three details the growth and status of K 12 online learning in the United States and Washington State. The chapter is based on a review of the literature, including research on online learning in the United States, national studies of states and school districts, a report on online learning in Washington State, and articles about policy issues, online course quality, outcomes and evaluation. 4

9 Following the overview of K 12 online learning in the United States and Washington, Chapter four presents the findings of the survey of Washington State school districts. The chapter describes the characteristics of the survey respondents and details the results of each survey question, divided among five categories. The chapter presents an analysis of survey question results based on district size (total enrollment) and location (urban/rural) and draws correlations between responses to specific questions. Chapter five provides further discussion of the findings, possible implications and policy considerations. The chapter focuses on what the findings might mean for OSPI, how the State legislature is tackling the concerns raised in this research, and other policy considerations. 5

10 Chapter 2: Research Methods This chapter describes the methods used to complete this research project. The purpose of this research is to understand Washington State school districts policies and practices related to online courses, and to present the implications of the findings and possible policy considerations. The research for this project was completed in three phases. The first phase was to compile information about the growth and current status of K 12 online learning in the United States and in Washington State. The second step was to design a survey tool and conduct a survey of Washington State school districts. The third phase was data analysis and interpretation. The reasons for choosing these research methods, the details about their design and implementation, and the limitations are described below. Literature review A review of practitioner and academic literature provided information about the growth and current status of K 12 online learning in the United States and Washington State. Useful resources included education and policy research databases and online learning organizations, such as the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). In addition, OSPI pointed to some valuable sources and provided primary source documents, which offered useful information about the context of online learning specifically in Washington State. The sources used in the literature review include national studies of states and school districts, a report on online learning in Washington State, and articles about policy issues, online course quality, outcomes and evaluation. Topics researched for the United States literature review include the scope of online learning, the various types of online learning programs and online course providers, and federal and state polices related to online learning. The research also covered the topics of research and evaluation of online learning and factors that limit growth. 6

11 The research for Washington State was similar. Topics covered include online course enrollment, programs and providers, and Washington and state law and policy. The research also examined what types of decisions are made at the school district level with regards to online learning policies and practices. Survey of Washington State school districts For this research, OSPI requested a survey of Washington State school districts. A survey is an effective method to efficiently gather a large amount of data in a short time, which was appropriate for this project given that there are 295 school districts in Washington State. Also given the context, a survey was effective because districts are accustomed to completing surveys conducted by OSPI. The survey tool provided the ability to quickly gather information from as many districts as possible and to produce data that could be readily analyzed. In contrast, conducting interviews would have entailed selecting a limited number of districts to interview and as a consequence, some districts willing to share information would not have been included. The survey was distributed to a list compiled by OSPI of the school district technology directors for each district. For smaller districts, there may not be a technology director, so another administrator who fills this role was listed instead. Either way, the list included the administrator from each school district who is most likely to know about district policies and practices related to online courses. Survey design The objective of the survey was to gather information about school district policies and practices related to K 12 online courses in Washington State. The design of the survey began with a list of key issues to investigate compiled by OSPI. The survey was drafted and revised, and then pre tested with the Educational Technology Director at OSPI and two districts. 7

12 It was not possible to cover all aspects of online course policies and practices in the survey. The survey aimed to address the issues most crucial to OSPI, and in order to achieve this, OSPI provided feedback throughout the survey design process. The survey was designed to be short enough to complete in a reasonable amount of time (approximately 15 minutes). The survey design was intended to produce data that would provide for mostly quantitative analysis and some qualitative analysis. To this end, the questions were framed in such a way so that the results could be aggregated and analyzed. The survey was 20 questions, made up of three open ended questions and 17 close ended (limited choice or check all that apply) questions. The close ended questions always allowed for a write in response. Eight of the close ended questions also asked for open ended explanations if a respondent gave a specific answer. Below is a summary of the issues covered in the survey: 5 District policies regarding student access to online courses, such as restrictions and policies to handle student requests to take one or more online course for credit. Perception of barriers to online courses and how students receive information about online courses. Types of course providers from which students take online courses for credit and which types of courses are likely to be approved for credit. Funding and tracking of online courses taken for credit. Practices to ensure online course quality. The survey was designed in Catalyst, which is a University of Washington online survey tool. The request to complete the survey was an sent directly from OSPI with an explanation of the purpose of the survey and the link to complete the survey. 6 The stated that if there is a 5 See Appendix A for the complete survey. 6 See Appendix A for the that was sent with the survey. 8

13 district employee who is a better choice to complete the survey, to please forward the to that person. The districts were given 17 days to complete the survey. Survey limitations There are some limitations to the survey research method. A common limitation of surveys is a low response rate, particularly when a survey is voluntary like the one for used in this research. A survey is limited by length and by the number of open ended questions it can contain while still encouraging a high response rate and feasible analysis. To promote response rates and to protect confidentiality, surveys often allow respondents to skip questions, which can limit the data gathered. Lastly, a survey is limited in that it is a one time attempt to get the information needed. Data analysis Before analyzing the survey data, the data was sorted to ensure that no duplicates or nondistrict responses were included. In 12 districts, more than one person from the district responded to the survey, probably a result of miscommunication. In addition, there was one respondent who listed their district as an entire Educational Service District so it was not clear if they represented one district or more than one, and consequently, this response was omitted. A decision rule was created to deal with the duplicate responses. First, if one response answered none or not applicable to all survey questions and the other provided substantive responses, the respondent with substantive responses was retained. This was the situation for three of the 12 duplicate responses. For the other nine duplicate responses, the two responses were merged into one. For all questions, if one respondent did not give an answer and the other did, the one answer was retained. If there were two answers to a question and the answers were different, the rule was based on question type: Open ended questions: retained both responses Close ended questions o Check all that apply questions: retained all responses that either respondent checked (including write in responses) 9

14 o Factual questions limited to one answer: did not include either response o Impression questions limited to one answer: retained the response with more information (i.e., if one answered yes with an explanation and one answers no, retained the yes and explanation) After the survey data was cleaned, the results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis. For each question, the data was sorted by response. For check all thatapply questions, the data was sorted by the number of unique responses as well as the number of times that each answer option was selected. Open ended questions were sorted and analyzed for themes and relevant nuances. To examine the data further, responses for specific questions were sorted into meaning subcategories, based on district size (total enrollment) and location (urban/rural). Data was also analyzed to assess correlations between questions. For example, findings were analyzed to determine whether districts that permit all students to take online courses for credit answer some questions differently than those districts that restrict some students from taking online courses for credit. After analyzing the survey data, the analysis was taken a step further to explain the implications of the findings and policy considerations. 10

15 Chapter 3: Status of K 12 Online Learning K 12 online learning in the United States Growth of K 12 online learning Over the past decade, the number of K 12 students taking online courses has grown. Research shows that online learning was initially used primarily for Advanced Placement and early college credit, but that alternative and remedial uses are growing. 7 As explained in a comprehensive review, the expansion of K 12 distance education (including online education) has been fueled by initiatives to expand educational opportunities for all students, funding shortages, overcrowded schools, exploration of alternative routes for education, and efforts to expand the range of courses available. 8 These forces, along with rapid technological development and widespread availability of the Internet in public schools and elsewhere, have fostered the growth of K 12 online learning. K 12 online learning continues to expand because of its perceived significance and role in K 12 education. A survey of U.S. school district administrators revealed that the perceived importance of online learning is mostly related mostly to student needs. The reasons to offer online courses that were most commonly reported as important include: offering courses not otherwise available at the school; meeting the needs of specific groups of students; offering advanced placement or college level courses; permitting students who failed a course to take it again; and reducing scheduling conflicts for students. 9 Despite the growth of K 12 online learning over the past decade, data is limited in comparison to postsecondary online education for which trends have been followed for many years. The limited data related to K 12 online learning can be attributed to the following four factors: 10 7 Smith, Clark, and Blomeyer, A Synthesis of New Research on K 12 Online Learning. 8 Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 9 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 10 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 11

16 1) There are minimal or no requirements in many states to collect data on online students. 2) There is some confusion related to definitions of online learning and distance education. 3) There are various public, private and for profit providers of online courses, many of which operate outside of the traditional school district structure. The school district may not be informed when students take online courses from outside providers. 4) Many home schooled students take online courses for a portion of their coursework, and data on this population is very limited. In response to the insufficiency of data and in an effort to understand the nature and extent of K 12 online learning, in the past five years there has been a marked increase in data collection. National surveys of U.S. school districts In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) published the first comprehensive report of distance education in K 12 schools based on data collected during the school year. In 2008, the USDOE issued a follow up study using data collected during the school year. These studies surveyed a representative sample of 2,312 public school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The studies define distance education as any credit granting course in which the teacher and student are in different locations. As such, courses included in the studies could be delivered online, or via audio, video, or other technology. Because the USDOE reports investigate all types of distance education, and not only online courses, the findings are not entirely relevant to this research. Of interest, however, is that the follow up USDOE study explored online distance education in a little more depth. It found that 71 percent of districts with students enrolled in technology based distance education courses had students enrolled in online courses. Eighty six percent of these districts reported that the online courses were accessed from school, 59 percent from home and eight percent from some other location. Nineteen percent of districts with students accessing online courses from home provided or paid for a computer for all of those students, and 10 percent did so for some 12

17 students. Overall, the study found that online education is increasingly accessible and common among schools and districts, but that video based technologies remain widely used as well. 11 In 2007, the Sloan Consortium issued a study of K 12 online learning based on a survey of U.S. school district administrators. This study was specifically focused on online learning and surveyed districts about two distinct types of online courses: 1) Online courses in which most (at least 80%) or all of the content is delivered online; and 2) Blended/hybrid courses that blend online and face to face delivery in which a substantial proportion (30 to 79%) of the content is delivered online. Three hundred and sixty six school districts responded to the survey. 12 Two years later, The Sloan Consortium conducted a follow up study, replicating the original study in order to substantiate findings and examine changes. The follow up study was based on the school year, with 867 school districts responding. The findings in the follow up study confirmed and substantiated the findings in the original report. The significant changes were in the growth of online course enrollment over the two years: 13 In the school year, 57.9 percent of the responding districts had students enrolled in online courses (not blended) compared to 69.8 percent of responding districts in The Sloan studies estimate that in there were 700,000 K 12 students enrolled in online courses (online and hybrid courses), and in there were 1,030,000, a 47 percent increase in two years. It is significant that this growth is not the result of a few large virtual schools or the specific needs of rural school districts, but a result of students taking online courses (online or blended) in three quarters of all districts (74.8%) respondents. The follow up study of the school year allowed for a breakdown of enrollment numbers by fully online and blended online courses. Based on this study, it is estimated that in the U.S. approximately 665,871 K 12 students were enrolled in fully online courses in the 11 Zandberg and Lewis, Technology Based Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: and Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 13 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 13

18 school year, which is 1.4 percent of the entire population of about 49,000,000 public school students in the United States. 14 Data show that online learning is spreading throughout K 12 education and specifically in secondary education. Continued growth seems likely, as the follow up survey showed that 66% of districts with students enrolled in online courses (online or blended) anticipate enrollments to grow, and most districts with no students enrolled in online courses plan to introduce them over the next three years. 15 Enrollment characteristics The large majority of K 12 students taking online courses are high school students. The Sloan studies found that of students enrolled in online courses (not blended), 73 percent were in grades 9 12 in and in , 64 percent were in grades The Sloan studies did not discuss how enrollment varies based on district size or location. However, the USDOE report on technology based education found that a greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students in enrolled in distance education courses (50%, 32% and 37% respectively), and that a greater proportion of districts in rural areas than in suburban or urban areas reported they had students enrolled in distance education courses (46%, 28% and 23% respectively). 17 Unfortunately, there is no comparable data specifically for online learning. Research shows that some of the reasons why students enroll in distance education (including online courses) are convenience, flexibility in scheduling, credit recovery, accelerated learning opportunities, conflict avoidance, and the ability to take courses not offered at a local school. 18 Research indicates that online education can serve populations that traditional classrooms may not, such as students in home school settings, students who live in remote areas, students who are hospitalized or home bound for health reasons, students who are incarcerated, students 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Zandberg and Lewis, Technology Based Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: and Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 14

19 who need flexible schedules for employment, or students who want to accelerate or expand their education, move at their own pace, or experience learning that fits their particular learning style. 19 Online learning serves a range of students, attracting students who are academically accelerated as well as students who have not been successful in the traditional classroom. Online course providers There are various types of online course providers and many school districts report that they utilize more than one provider. Online course providers across the United State include: school districts, charter schools, state virtual schools, state technology service agencies, postsecondary institutions, and for profit and nonprofit independent vendors. 20 Based on the most recent survey of U.S. school district administrators, the three most common providers of online courses are: 1) post secondary institutions; 2) state virtual school within the district s home state; and 3) independent vendors. 21 Online course providers can be administered by state agencies, departments of education, school districts, consortiums, postsecondary institutions, or independent organizations. Providers offer either supplemental online courses, full time online options, or both, as explained in the following section. Types of online learning programs An important distinction for online learning programs is whether they are supplemental or fulltime. Supplemental programs enroll students who are simultaneously enrolled in a school separate from the online program, while students in full time programs are enrolled only in the online school. Full time programs are typically responsible for students scores on state assessments and are typically funded by the per student (FTE) public education funding formula that follows the student, while most state led supplemental programs are funded primarily by 19 Ibid. 20 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 21 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 15

20 separate legislative appropriations. However useful, the supplemental and full time distinctions are not precise because a few supplemental programs have some full time students, and some full time programs have some part time students. 22 As of fall 2008: 23 Twenty three states offer supplemental opportunities, but not full time options. Most of these states have state led programs (definition below). Seventeen states (including Washington) offer both supplemental and full time online options for students. Many of these states have both a state led program and full time, online schools. Four states offer full time options, but not supplemental. These states have extensive charter schools and/or district online programs, but do not have a state led supplemental program that offers courses to students across the state. To further explain the distinctions between various online learning programs, the yearly national report Keeping Pace with Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice uses the following definitions: 24 State led online programs are created by legislation or by a state level agency and are generally administered by a state education agency and funded by a state appropriation or grant. State led programs are typically supplemental programs, meaning that they offer courses for students who are also enrolled in a traditional school separate from the online program. State led online initiatives offer online tools and resources for schools across the state, including aggregating courses from outside sources, but do not develop and offer their own courses. Full time online programs, sometimes called cyber schools or virtual schools, are online learning programs in which students enroll and earn credits. Many full time online schools in the United States are charter schools. The national report found that as of fall 2008, 34 states have state led programs or initiatives that are designed, in most cases, to work with existing school districts to supplement course offerings. Washington State has a state led online initiative, which will be explained in the 22 Watson, Gemin, and Ryan, Keeping Pace with K 12 Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 16

21 Washington State portion of this chapter. Twenty one states have full time online schools, which are often charter schools, although some are non charter, district run programs that are available to students across the state. 25 State full time online schools and state led programs or initiatives are ways in which states govern online learning. While online learning is primarily governed at the state level, there are also some federal laws related to online learning. Federal laws governing K 12 online learning The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) applies to online learning environments as well as traditional schools. Specifically, online teachers are subject to NCLB s highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirement. The requirements state that secondary teachers have at least a bachelor s degree and a state certification or pass the state licensing exam, and an elementary teacher must hold at least a bachelor s degree and pass a state test. There are some exceptions, such as a rural school district s inability to fill a teaching vacancy. 26 If federal funds are used for online learning, specific laws apply. As such, the Children s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) regulates internet access in schools that receive federal technology funding, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act make it against the law for a student to be prevented from participating due to a disability. 27 Also, the U.S. Department of Education requires that school district report annually on numbers of computers, Internet connectivity, technology literacy, and use of technology in the classroom. 28 State online learning policy While federal laws play a role, online learning is largely governed at the state level. State governments determine the type of online learning program they will support, such as a stateled program or initiative or a full time online school. States also make policies for funding, quality assurance, and tracking and accountability. This literature review provides examples of state policies and explains key policy issues. 25 Ibid Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs. 28 Ibid. 17

22 According to Keeping Pace, the national report of state level online learning, 40 states have state level policy regulating online learning. These state level policies are in the forms of statutes, administrative code or rules, or state board policy. State legislation related to online learning include legislation on charter schools, legislation to create a virtual school or another state led program, funding legislation, and legislation to set policy for online programs or schools. 29 There are a few key policy issues in online learning. Often in distance education literature, policy areas are divided into seven categories. 30 Specifically for online learning, The Keeping Pace report presents a simplified model with three broad policy areas: 1) funding; 2) governance, tracking, and accountability; and 3) quality assurance, teaching, and curriculum. 31 Research and evaluation To help inform policymaking, decision makers rely on research and evaluation. Research on online education can be divided into two categories: 1) studies that compare online learning to traditional classroom learning; and 2) studies that examine specific components of online learning such as student characteristics, instruction and course design. Comparative studies Five meta analyses have been conducted in recent years comparing the effectiveness of K 12 distance education to classroom learning. While most of these analyses evaluated distance education in general, one analysis by Cavanaugh et al (2004) focused solely on K 12 online learning. Cavanaugh et al completed a meta analysis of fourteen studies focusing on student outcomes. This analysis showed that based on the best research available, a student s education online 29 Watson, Gemin, and Ryan, Keeping Pace with K 12 Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice. 30 King et al., Policy Frameworks for Distance Education: Implications for Decision Makers ; Simonson, Policy and Distance Education. 31 Watson, Gemin, and Ryan, Keeping Pace with K 12 Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice. 18

23 can be as effective as it is in a classroom. Their conclusion was that students can experience similar levels of academic success while learning online and learning in classroom settings, but that the variation in the degrees of success calls for a need for more information. The authors also called on policymakers and evaluators to move beyond comparison studies and begin to evaluate specific characteristics of effective K 12 online learning programs. 32 While these studies show that online education has the potential to be as effective as classroom education, there is skepticism among many educators and policymakers. There is concern among teachers related to professional development, job security, weakening teacher status, and instructional change, which could lead to diploma devaluation. 33 School district administrators share similar concerns. School districts reported that the major barriers and issues for online learning are: 34 1) Concerns about course quality. 2) Course development and/or purchasing costs. 3) Concerns about receiving funding based on student attendance for online courses. 4) The need for teacher training. Among these barriers and issues, concern about course quality was cited by the most school district administrators as an important issue. Specifically, the administrators expressed concern about the ability of online courses to replace face to face instruction effectively, the concern about monitoring quality of courses offered outside of the district, and the need for welltrained online instructors. 35 Research on characteristics of K 12 online education Student Characteristics Research about student characteristics is generally focused on the relationship between student characteristics and student success. Based on a recent literature review, most studies 32 Cavanaugh et al., The Effects of Distance Education on K 12 Student Outcomes: A Meta Analysis. 33 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 34 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators ; Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 35 Picciano and Seaman, K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. 19

24 examining student characteristics are descriptive or anecdotal, and most studies suggest that a combination of factors may contribute to student success. 36 These studies are so broad and generalizing that they are virtually non informative. A study in 2003 used the results from an educational success instrument to predict student success in online courses. The study found that students who are successful in online courses (earn an A, B, or C) enjoy technology, have strong language skills, are visual learners, have consistent parent support, and are involved in non academic activities. 37 Students who spend fewer hours working at a job outside school are also more successful. 38 Another study found that successful online students are motivated, independent and self directed. 39 Research indicates that student success in online courses has improved over time as course design, instructional practice, support services, and student screening have evolved. 40 Instructional Practices It has been hypothesized that teacher quality plays a significant role in online education outcomes, just as it does in traditional education environments. 41 Studies have found that a high degree of student teacher interaction is a necessity in online learning and that online students value frequent and timely responses to questions and inter student communication within courses. 42 There are limited studies that address the specific needs of K 12 online learners as opposed to adult learners. Specific best practices for online instruction are usually isolated examples from individual virtual schools or teachers within a school. 43 Online courses require a shift in the role of teachers. There are barriers to teachers making this shift, including concerns about course quality. Studies recognize that a fundamental concern of teachers is how much can be 36 Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 37 Roblyer & Marshall as cited in North American Council for Online Learning, Effectiveness of K 12 Online Learning. 38 Roblyer & Marshall as cited in Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 39 North American Council for Online Learning, Effectiveness of K 12 Online Learning. 40 North American Council for Online Learning, Effectiveness of K 12 Online Learning. 41 Cavanaugh et al 2004 as cited in Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 42 Weiner and Zucker as cited in North American Council for Online Learning, Effectiveness of K 12 Online Learning. 43 Barbour as cited in Ibid. 20

25 accomplished in the classroom versus online. Other barriers include inadequate training and professional development, lack of time for development for course content, and technological barriers. 44 Course Design One of the greatest criticisms and concerns about K 12 online education is the lack of social interactions and what effect that might have on students development and socialization. There have been improvements in recent years in online technologies, such as threaded discussion boards, that allow for enhanced interaction and replicate classroom interactions as closely as possible. 45 There are a variety of possible types of interaction that can occur in an online course. The types of interaction can be categorized as synchronous (real time) and asynchronous (delayed time). Examples of synchronous interactions are instant messaging or chat tools, file sharing and audio and video communications. Examples of asynchronous interaction are and threaded discussion. 46 Evidence points to the importance of interactions with teachers in course design. A 2003 study found that online students who experience consistent, positive relationships with their teachers were less likely to drop out. 47 Reducing dropout rate is a critical concern of K 12 online schools and programs, which have relatively high dropout and failure rates; as much as 50 percent. 48 Evaluation The literature reveals that evaluations of online learning programs should focus on issues of student outcomes and achievement as well as issues such as equity, access, and development of online teachers. 44 Rice, A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. 45 Romiszowski & Mason as cited in Ibid. 46 Rominzowski & Mason as cited in Ibid. 47 Zweig as cited in Ibid. 48 Carr, Roblyer & Elbaum, Simpson as cited in Ibid. 21

26 In recent years, there has been an effort to compile best practices into a set of standards that programs and teachers can use in evaluation. These quality standards include areas such as course content, instructional design, student assessment, technology, and course evaluation and management. Readers wanting further information on example evaluations and evaluation strategies should refer to literature on program evaluation and a report published in 2008 by USDOE about challenges and recommended strategies for evaluating online learning WestEd with Edvance Research, Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges and Strategies for Success. 22

27 K 12 online learning in Washington State The Washington State public school system has a total student enrollment of 1,023,769, among 2,081 schools in 295 school districts. 50 Along with the rest of the country, Washington State has seen recent growth in K 12 online learning, and is faced with similar policy issues and concerns. Online course enrollment Since 2001, as part of the annual technology survey, OSPI has asked districts to report the number of secondary students enrolled in online courses for credit. In the school year, 14,266 secondary students in Washington State were enrolled in one or more online courses for credit. Of these students, 6,766 took only one online course, 3,630 took 2 or more courses online (but not full time) and 3,827 took all of their courses online as full time students. The survey found that 52 percent of districts report at least one secondary student enrolled in one or more online course. 51 The survey does not include online course enrollments for non secondary students. The survey asks districts to report online course enrollment by school. Comparing online course enrollment across schools, the following three online schools had the highest enrollment in : 1. Washington Virtual Academy in Steilacoom Historical School District (2,513 students) 2. Insight School of Washington in Quillayute Valley School District (991 students) 3. Internet Academy in Federal Way School District (609) In total, 301 schools in Washington State had one or more secondary student enrolled in one or more online courses for credit during the school year. Twenty six schools had 100 or more students enrolled in one or more online course. 52 The survey does not ask districts to report the providers from which students take online courses. 50 Spreadsheet from Dennis Small, Director of Educational Technology, OSPI, 2009 (data based on school year) 51 Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Technology Survey Full Results. 52 Ibid. 23

28 Programs and providers Washington State has a state led online initiative, not a state run online school. Washington s online initiative is called the Digital Learning Commons (DLC), which is a nonprofit organization that offers online courses and resources to schools and students, but does not award credit or diplomas. The DLC is partially funded by the State; $1.25 million dollars were appropriated for the 2009 fiscal year. 53 In Washington there are currently ten other statewide online programs run by school districts that serve students statewide. 54 At the district level, online courses are provided on a course by course basis in some districts, while in other districts there are full time online schools. 55 In the various scenarios, some districts have created their own courses, while others contract out to other course providers, such as Achieve Online, Apex Learning, Advanced Academics, or K12 Inc. 56 In summary, there are essentially two types of online learning in Washington State: 57 1) Programs: District or multidistrict programs, regardless of ownership of courses that enroll a significant number of students outside the district. These programs are full time (students take a full course load) and courses can be either internal or contracted. 2) Offerings: Course offerings by providers of online courses, in which students enroll less than full time. Washington State laws and policies In 2008, a report about online learning in Washington State was prepared for the Senate Early Learning & K 12 Education Committee. The report describes the Washington State laws and administrative rules governing online learning. To provide background for this research, the 53 Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs. Citing ESHB 2687, Ch. 329, sect. 140(2) 54 with spread sheet of Online Schools in Washington State, received from Dennis Small, OSPI Educational Technology Director, on January 22, Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs ; Washington State Board of Education, Online Learning Policy Issues, Memo Washington State Board of Education, Online Learning Policy Issues, Memo with spread sheet of Online Schools in Washington State, received from Dennis Small, OSPI Educational Technology Director, on January 22, Personal communication with Dennis Small, Director of Educational Technology, OSPI,

29 policies are summarized here. Readers wanting more details on specific laws should refer to the committee report. 58 In Washington, online learning is considered an Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) and is governed by ALE code (unless the online learning is part of a regular classroom program or is not being claimed for basic education apportionment). 59 Programs regulated under ALE rules must be supervised, monitored, assessed, and evaluated by Washington State certified instructional staff. Under ALE rules, certain requirements must be met such as weekly contact with an instructor (can be through digital means), a written student learning plan, and monthly progress reviews. 60 ALE programs must provide an annual report, which details FTE (Full Time Equivalent) enrollment, how students are evaluated, and how the program supports state and district learning objectives. 61 Public school programs that primarily provide ALE courses through online means require accreditation through a state or regional accreditation program. Online schools are responsible for their students completion and performance on state assessment tests. If a school district contracts online learning programs through an outside provider, the district must follow the instruction provided under contract laws and rules. 62 Per student FTE funding is generated by students in ALE programs. In 2005, Washington expanded the definition of a full time student to allow districts to claim funding for students receiving instruction through digital programs, which includes online learning. Districts may also use state funds to pay for online courses if the course provider is accredited through the regional accreditation program and the student is still enrolled in the district. Washington State does not fund or allow charter schools, including online charter schools Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs Ed/ProgramImplementationGuidelines/default.aspx 60 Ed 61 Watson, Gemin, and Ryan, Keeping Pace with K 12 Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice. 62 Washington State Board of Education, Online Learning Policy Issues, Memo Ibid. 25

30 In 2008, legislation was passed that requires OSPI to add information to its website regarding opportunities for high school students to earn college credit through online learning courses. 64 Student eligibility for digital learning programs is governed by RCW 28A , which allows school districts much discretion. Students may take online courses outside of their district. In fact, transfer students make up 30 percent or more of enrollment in some online learning programs. There is no limit to the number of students a district can receive through the transfer process. This results in a policy issue because a small school district s budget can quickly become unbalanced when students leave to participate in another district s online school. 65 As this research was being conducted, during the 2009 legislative session, the Washington State legislature passed an online learning bill, Substitute Senate Bill 5410, intended to improve oversight and quality assurance of online learning programs. 66 Among other things, this law will create an approval process for multidistrict online course providers and requires school district boards to develop policies and procedures for student access to online learning. 67 The law and its implications will be discussed in more detail in the fifth chapter of this report. School Districts Washington State has relatively few laws regulating online learning, allowing districts the autonomy to determine whether or not to provide online learning, how to deliver it, and to monitor quality. Districts can set policies that affect the accessibility of online courses, such as eligibility restrictions. Districts are responsible to grant or deny credits for online courses and to determine fit with curriculum. In addition, districts determine how to track and report online courses. OSPI surveys districts about the levels of secondary student online course enrollment, but it does not collect information about district policies and practices related to online courses. The review of the literature reveals that there is virtually no information about Washington State 64 Burwell, Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs. 65 Washington State Board of Education, Online Learning Policy Issues, Memo Representative Hunter, Legislative Bill Ibid. 26

31 school district policies and practices related to online courses, which serves as the basis for this research. Understanding what is happening at the district level will lead to a better understanding of the nature of online learning in Washington State. 27

32 Chapter 4: Findings This chapter details the findings of the school district survey administered in March The aim of the survey was to determine school district policies and practices related to online courses. This chapter begins with a description of the characteristics of the survey respondents and then details the survey findings, divided into the following five sections: 1) District policies regarding students taking online courses for credit. 2) District practices including online course providers, at risk students, and funding. 3) District practices related to tracking and quality assurance. 4) Issues of access to online courses. 5) Districts general comments on online courses. While this chapter describes the findings and provides some analysis, further analysis and implications of the findings can be found in the following chapter of this report. Respondent characteristics In total, 133 school districts and two schools, the Washington State School for the Blind and the Washington State School for the Deaf, participated in this survey. The two schools are not part of the district structure, but they are publically funded and OSPI includes them in this type of research. Of the 295 school districts in Washington State, 133 districts participated in this survey, which is a 45 percent response rate. The 133 district respondents have a total student enrollment of 495,508, which represents 48.4 percent of the 1,023,769 students enrolled in public schools in Washington State. Three of the participating school districts chose not to provide their name, so their enrollment is unknown and not included in these statistics. Below, the characteristics of the 130 known district respondents are compared to the characteristics of all 295 districts in Washington State. Given these statistics, the sample of districts for this research has remarkably similar characteristics to the entire population of districts in Washington State. 28

33 District enrollment. Of the 130 known districts participating in this survey, percent have enrollment of 10,000 and above, compared to percent of all districts; percent have enrollment between 1,000 and 9,999 compared to percent of all districts; and percent have enrollment below 1,000 compared to percent of all districts. 68 Online course enrollment. The annual OSPI technology survey collects data from all school districts on the number of secondary students enrolled in one or more online courses for credit. Among the 130 known districts in this survey, percent reported that more than 100 secondary students are enrolled in one or more online courses for credit, compared to percent of all districts; reported that between one and 100 are enrolled, compared to of all districts; and percent reported that none are enrolled, compared to of all districts. 69 Urban and rural. In the sample of 130 districts, percent are rural and percent are urban, compared to all districts, which are rural and percent urban. The urban and rural distinction is based on Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) classifications. While the above characteristics include only the 130 known district respondents, in all other findings, all 135 respondents are included. For simplicity, in the remainder of this report, districts refers to all respondents, including the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf. District policies regarding students taking online courses for credit Students permitted to take online courses for credit The survey found that 13 percent of districts permit all students to take online course for credit, while 11 percent permit none. Nineteen percent of districts permit only middle and high school students to take online course for credit. Fifty one percent of districts permit only high school students to take online courses for credit. These findings are shown in Figure Based on enrollment numbers provided by OSPI. 69 Based on the OSPI technology survey (293 of the 295 districts responded to this survey). 29

34 Figure 1. Students permitted to take online courses for credit Looking further at these data, there is a significant variation based on district size. For these analyses, large districts are those with enrollment of 10,000 or more, medium districts have enrollment between 1,000 and 9,999 and small districts have enrollment of less than 1,000. All 15 districts that responded that none of their students are permitted to take online courses for credit are small districts, 11 of the 15 are rural, and 11 of the 15 do not have a high school in their district. As a proportion, nearly 25 percent of small districts responded that none of their students are permitted to take online courses for credit; whereas no medium or large districts gave this response. However, across all district sizes, the most common response was that only high school students are permitted to take online courses for credit. Restrictions on the number of online courses a student can take for credit The majority of districts, 64 percent, responded that there is no restriction on the number of online courses that a student can take for credit at a given time. For the 42 districts that responded that there is a restriction, the survey asked for the maximum number of online courses a student can take at a given time. The respondents gave at least 15 distinct responses to this question. 30

35 The most common responses were one course, two courses, three courses and six courses, in that order. Interestingly, two districts responded that the maximum number of courses is dependent on funds. Both of these respondents are small rural districts. While 42 districts responded that there is a restriction on the number of online courses a student can take for credit at a given time, only 17 districts responded that there is a restriction on the overall number of online courses taken for credit during one s high school career. Of the 17 districts with restrictions, there were a variety of responses, ranging from a restriction of one course to 15 courses. The two most common restrictions among the 17 districts were two courses and four courses, each cited by four districts. 70 Who decides whether and how much credit is granted for online courses? The survey asked the question Who decides which online courses not provided by your district can be taken for credit and how much credit is given? The survey provided six options plus a write in option and districts were instructed to check all that apply. In total, 35 different responses were given, which demonstrates that there is significant variation among districts regarding who makes this important decision regarding online courses. In fact, 22 of the 35 different responses were unique to just one district. The most common responses were as follows: School Principal (30 percent of districts) It is governed by school board policy (seven percent of districts) Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent AND School Principal (seven percent of districts) The seven answer choices provided on the survey were: 1) Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent; 2) District Curriculum Director; 3) District Curriculum Review Committee; 4) School Principal; 5) Teacher; 6) It is governed by school policy; and 7) Other (write in). Almost 38 percent of respondents selected more than one answer choice, which indicates that for 70 This is assuming that one credit is equal to one course because some districts responses were in number of credits. 31

36 many districts, the decision is made by a combination of individual staff/review committee/board policy. Figure 2 shows the answer choices most commonly selected. It is important to note that a write in response, Counselor, was cited by 14 districts. No other write in responses were cited by more than one district. Figure 2. Person or group responsible for determining credit for online courses Factors considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit The survey listed five factors that districts might consider when determining if an online course can be taken for credit: 1) Type of course (i.e., Advanced Placement course, elective course, core course, etc.); 2) Online course provider; 3) Student s grade level; 4) Course content; and 5) Student s performance in the course (i.e., letter grade or overall percentage score). Respondents were asked to check all that apply. Figure 3 shows the number of times that districts selected each of the five answer choices. 32

37 Figure 3. Factors considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit Results show that 29 percent of districts consider all five factors when determining if an online course can be taken for credit. An additional 17 percent of districts consider four of the five factors. In total, 51 percent of districts consider three or more factors and 79 percent of districts consider more than one factor. Overall, districts responses included 54 unique combinations of the answer choices, including write in answers. Thirty districts listed a factor in addition to the answer choices on the survey. Of these, nine districts consider whether a course is for credit recovery/retrieval. This factor was meant to be captured in the answer option Type of course (i.e., Advanced Placement course, elective course, core course, etc.), but since credit recovery was not listed in the parentheses, some districts wrote it in separately. Other write in responses include: 1) whether the institution/program is accredited; 2) course availability; 3) whether the student has previously failed an online course; and 4) the student s social and educational needs. Types of online courses which are likely to be approved for credit The data show that multiple types of online courses are likely to be approved for credit. Ninetyeight percent of districts selected at least two course types and/or responded that all courses are equally likely to be approved for credit or course type is not a significant factor in whether a course is approved for credit. Figure 4 displays the number of districts that selected each 33

38 response. Analysis of these data is limited because the word likely can be interpreted differently across districts. The results indicate that courses for credit recovery and courses required for graduation are the two course types most likely to be approved for credit across districts; each was selected by more than half of districts. Figure 4. Types of online courses likely to be approved for credit The survey also asked what types of online courses are likely to be approved for credit specifically for middle school students. Results show that of the districts that permit middle school students to take online courses for credit, 33 percent report that core courses required for grade level completion are likely to be approved for credit and 23 percent report that elective courses are likely to be approved for credit. Another 18 percent of districts that permit middle school students to take online courses for credit responded that all courses are equally likely to be approved for credit or that course type is not a significant factor in whether a course is approved for credit. Other district policies and procedures In addition to the policies addressed so far in the findings which students are permitted to take online courses for credit, restrictions on number of courses, who decides which courses 34

39 can be taken for credit, what factors are considered, and which types of courses are likely to be approved for credit about 25 percent of responding districts (34 districts) have other policies or procedures in place to handle requests from students to take one or more online courses for credit. Of the 34 districts that have other policies and procedures in place, 17 are urban, 17 are rural, seven are large, 16 medium and 11 small. As a percentage, large districts and urban districts are more likely than their counterparts to have other policies and procedures in place. Forty one percent of large districts responded that they have other policies and procedures in place; whereas 30 percent of medium districts and only 18 percent of small districts responded this way. While not as dramatic, a variation also exists between urban and rural school districts. Thirty three percent of urban districts and 21 percent of rural districts responded that they have other policies and procedures in place. Five themes emerged among the policies and procedures cited by the 34 districts. The first theme is about provider accreditation and course quality. For example, three districts responded that online courses are only accepted from accredited institutions and another district responded that the course must be equivalent to a district offered course to be accepted. The second theme is related to the Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) code. A few districts responded that they follow state ALE policies and procedures when handling requests from students to take an online course for credit. The third theme is policies related to Full Time Equivalent (FTE), such as a policy that that students cannot take more than one FTE of classes, regardless of whether a course is online or not. In contrast, another district responded that if a student enrolled full time completes their courses, they can then add supplemental online courses. 35

40 The fourth theme is about who is involved and how the approval process for online courses happens. Examples of policies in this category include individual interviews with students and parent, interview with online program administrator, counseling center approval, and forms that students complete to request to take online courses for credit. The fifth theme is student eligibility to take online courses for credit. For example, a district has a policy that a student must be at least one full year behind to be able to take online courses or be taking an advanced course that the school does not provide. Other examples are a policy that online courses are used for credit retrieval only and that parent permission is required. Other districts have a list of guidelines or a set of policies for attendance and progress. District practices: online course providers, at risk students, and funding Online course providers The survey asked From which course providers to students take online courses for credit? The provider types given on the survey were: 1) your district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district or a school in the district); 2) another district, or schools in another district in Washington State; 3) state virtual school in another state; 4) districts or schools in other states (other than a state virtual school); 5) postsecondary institution; and 6) nonprofit or commercial provider. The survey also allowed for a write in response. Districts responses included 50 unique combinations of the answer choices, including write in answers. The most common identical response, given by nineteen districts, was one provider type: nonprofit or commercial provider. Thirty five percent of districts responded that students take online courses for credit from only one provider type. Twenty nine percent of districts selected two types of providers and 24 percent selected three or more types of providers. Overall, the four most commonly selected provider types were: 1) nonprofit or commercial provider; 2) postsecondary institution; 3) your district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district or a school in the district); and 4) another district, or schools in another district in Washington 36

41 State. Figure 5 displays the answer choices and the number of times each provider type was selected. Seventeen districts wrote in Digital Learning Commons (DLC) as a response, although the DLC was meant to be included in the nonprofit or commercial provider type since the DLC is a nonprofit. Figure 5. Course providers from which students take online courses for credit Districts providing online courses internally Thirty seven districts, or 27 percent, responded that students take online courses for credit from their own district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district or a school in the district). Of these 37 districts, only 8 chose their own district as the only provider type from which students take online courses for credit. The other 29 districts selected at least one other provider type in addition to their own district. In comparison with known district respondents, the 37 districts that provide online courses internally tend to be larger districts in urban areas. The 37 districts have the following characteristics: 76 percent are medium or large districts, compared to 55 percent of known respondents 46 percent are urban districts, compared to 38 percent of known respondents 37

42 Online courses as a tool to help at risk students complete their high school degrees Almost three quarters or 74 percent of districts responded that in their district, online courses are used as a tool to help at risk students complete their high school degrees. Of the 81 districts that provided an explanation for how online courses are used as a tool to help at risk students complete their high school degrees, two primary themes emerged, sometimes in combination: 1) Online courses are used for credit recovery/credit retrieval for at risk students 2) Online courses are used as a tool for at risk students through alternative high schools/alternative Learning Experience (ALE) programs The characteristics of the districts that use online courses as a tool to help at risk students complete their high school degrees are similar to the overall characteristics of respondents. Fifteen percent are large districts, 48 percent are medium and 35 percent are small. Fifty nine percent are rural and 39 percent are urban. Funding for online courses Districts were asked who pays for online high school courses for credit under six different circumstances. Districts were able to select school, student, or both, and could also write in a response. The findings are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Funding for online courses in different circumstances Who pays for online high school courses for credit? (number of times districts selected each response) Circumstances School Student Other Advanced Placement Courses District (4); Depends (4); Grant (3); State (2) Courses for College Credit State (5); District (3); Depends (3) Core Courses required for Graduation Depends (8); District (4); Grant (4) Elective Courses Depends (5); District (4); Grant (2) Credit Recovery Depends (10); District (3); Grant (2) Courses Beyond 1.0 FTE District (2) The findings show that in all situations except courses beyond 1.0 FTE, it is more common for the school to pay for the online course than the student. The circumstance when it is most 38

43 common for the school to pay is when a student takes an online course that is a core course required for graduation. As explained in chapter three, funding for online courses in Washington State is based on the Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) rules. The rules allow school districts to claim basic education funding (i.e., FTE) for online courses based on student making satisfactory progress towards the learning goals in the student s learning plan. Given this context, the survey findings imply that the majority of students taking online courses are in ALE programs. In each of the six circumstances, between six and twelve percent of districts selected both school and student in their response. In these cases, it is not clear if the district response means that the cost is divided between school and student or if it means it depends on the situation. In each of the circumstances, districts wrote in responses not provided by the survey. The common other responses are shown in the other column in Table 1. Some districts that cited that grants pay for courses specified that the grants are from the Digital Learning Commons; other districts indicated that the grant is local, but did not name the particular grant. Another common write in response from districts was it depends. While most districts did not explain the response it depends, some districts described a criterion upon which the decision of who pays depends or varies. For example, some districts responded that if the online course is taken from an out of district provider, the student pays. Other districts explained that if a student successfully completes the course, the school will pay, but if the student fails, the student pays. A third explanation provided was that if the online course if part of summer school, the student pays, but if it is part of the regular academic year, the school pays. 39

44 District practices: tracking and quality assurance Distinguishing online courses on student transcripts The survey found that 40 percent of districts distinguish online courses from regular courses on student transcripts. Fifty one responded no to the question, and the remainder did not respond. When asked how online courses are distinguished on transcripts, districts gave a variety of answers. In one way or another, districts indicate online courses in the course name, title, code, number or designator. Below are some examples of how online courses are distinguished on student transcripts: Marked as independent study (IS) Marked as transfer credits (TR) Name of the online course provider is listed Identified as a correspondence course Coded as RS for Running Start or NOVA for Nova Net (an online course provider) A note is added to the transcript Online course completion rates Forty three districts or 32 percent responded that they record online course completion rates; whereas 57 responded that they do not. Looking at the characteristics of the 43 districts that record online course completion rates, results show that these districts are more likely to be large and more likely to be urban than the sample overall. Districts that record online course completion rates were asked how course completion is defined. The most common responses were that course completion is defined as earning credit or passing the course (earning a passing grade). Other ways that districts define course completion include: completing enrollment, a course credit checklist and when a student has taken district assessments and teacher has recorded a grade. Two other districts site that the provider determines course completion. Feedback about online course quality Results show that 33 percent of districts collect feedback about online course quality. Among these districts, feedback is most commonly collected from various individuals or combinations 40

45 of individuals including students, parents, teachers, and counselors. Of these sources of feedback, the most common is students; ninety three percent of responses included students. After students, the most frequently cited were parents, teachers and counselors, in that order. Two districts mentioned that feedback data is collected by the Digital Learning Commons. Of the districts that provided a response about how and from whom feedback is collected, over three quarters of them cited that they collect feedback from more than one source. The most common method of collecting feedback is through surveys. The results show that some districts collect anecdotal feedback, some conduct surveys, and others collect both oral and written feedback. Summary of district practices related to tracking online courses Figure 6, below, shows the results of the three questions described above related to tracking online courses: 1) distinguishing online courses on transcripts; 2) recording online course completion rates; and 3) collecting feedback about online course quality. Of these three practices, distinguishing online courses on transcripts is the most common; however, none of these practices are done by more than 40 percent of districts. Figure 6. District practices related to tracking online courses 41

46 Quality assurance: alignment with state requirements The survey asked what actions, if any, districts take to ensure that online courses are aligned with Washington State Grade Level Expectations (GLE) and/or Classroom Based Assessments (CBA) and fit with regular curriculum. Results show that 71 percent of districts take some action, nine percent take no action, and the remainder either did not respond, or responded don t know or not applicable. Among the districts that take action to ensure online course alignment, several themes emerged in the actions they take as well as who is responsible. What action do they take? Districts report that they review online course curriculum, course description and syllabus to ensure alignment with state requirements. Five districts responded that they assure alignment because all classes at DLC are aligned with state requirements. Three districts reported that the process is the same for online courses as it is for traditional courses. Other actions districts take include assuring accreditation, only using providers recognized by OSPI (such as DLC, Advanced Academics, and APEX), researching programs and providers, and making sure the instructor is a Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT). Who is responsible? Many districts answered the question in terms of who is responsible to take the action to ensure course alignment. Among these responses, the most common response was the course provider, meaning that districts rely on the course provider to review courses and ensure alignment with State requirements. The second most common response was teacher, meaning that a teacher is responsible for reviewing the online course content to ensure alignment. Other responses include: curriculum department, counselor and principal, High School curriculum team, High School department, and curriculum advisory committee. Quality assurance: district practices to ensure quality of online courses When asked if there is anything else the district does to ensure the quality of online courses, 33 percent of district responded yes and provided an explanation. Districts efforts to ensure online course quality can fit into four categories. The first category is provider quality and accreditation. For example, districts reported that they only accept classes from accredited institutions or only from particular trustworthy providers to promote quality. 42

47 The second category of efforts to ensure online course quality is evaluation and feedback. Districts report that they review curriculum, course content, and course assessment components to assess rigor and alignment with district standards. Other responses reveal that some districts review online programs on a continuous basis, and have ongoing evaluation and dialog between students and school staff. Other review tools include using the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) Standards of Quality and having a mentor teacher perform weekly tracking and teacher audits. Districts also cited feedback as an important method to ensure online course quality: feedback from parents, teachers, and students, end ofthe year surveys, and feedback and follow up from an online mentor. The third category of district actions to promote online course quality is related to staff and teachers. This includes the quality of the online course instructor, the support provided to the instructor, and the support provided to the student taking the online course. Districts responded that staff and teachers are important to the quality of online courses as well as student s success in these courses. One district mentioned that they ensure that teachers are highly qualified (HQT) and Washington State Certified. Another district reported that they have a teacher/facilitator monitor student process and success. The fourth category is student preparation and follow up. For example, a district responded that students are required to pass an entry course, Introduction to Online Learning, and another district surveys students for appropriate learning style, situation and work ethic before taking an online course. One district requires students to take online tests on site and another monitors student progress in online courses carefully and intervenes quickly when progress is poor. Quality assurance: teacher professional development Of districts that provide online courses internally, the survey asked what kind of professional development, if any, the district requires for a teacher to be qualified to be an online instructor. Forty one districts provided information about professional development. Some districts that 43

48 do not provide online courses internally answered this question even though it was intended for only those that provide online courses internally. In an effort to put forth the most information, even responses from districts that do not provide online courses internally are included. The most common response was that teachers receive professional development from the district s online course provider(s). Other professional development includes: training from DLC, online learning conferences, training from in house supervisor, orientation from a teacher mentor, and training from the online program coordinator or program administrator. Another district stated that online teachers from each of the high schools meet regularly as a team for training and discussion. Issues of access to online courses Barrier to accessing online courses The survey asked districts from their perspective what, if any, barriers students face in accessing online courses. The survey provided six options and asked districts to check all that apply. Cost was the barrier most commonly cited, by 73 districts. Sixteen districts responded that there are no barriers facing students in accessing online courses. Sixty four percent of districts cited more than one barrier. The number of times that each barrier was cited is displayed in Figure 7. Figure 7. Barriers students face in accessing online courses 44

49 In addition to the above responses, districts wrote in other responses from which three main themes emerged: Seven districts responded that a barrier students face is related to the students own abilities and characteristics, such as motivation, self discipline, learning style and work ethic. Five districts responded that a barrier can be related to misalignment between the need of a student and the nature of online learning. As examples, districts cited access to personal contact, lack of support, need for help, and lack of accessibility for the blind and deaf. Four districts described aspects of district policy as being a barrier or disincentive for students to access online courses. These responses include that there are no clear crediting guidelines; the district does not allow courses that compete with local offerings; the district accepts credit but no grade, only as a pass; and one district cited limited available online slots within the district. Information provided to students about online courses Results show that 64 percent of districts provide information to their students about online courses through more than one source. Twenty six percent of districts provide information about online courses through one source, and 10 percent of districts responded that they provide no information. The most common source through which districts provide information to their students about online courses is counselors. One hundred and twelve districts or 83 percent included counselor in their response. The next most common response was teachers, cited by 65 districts or 48 percent. Figure 8 displays the eight responses and the number of times districts selected each one. In addition to the eight answer choices given in the survey, three districts cited a course catalog/course guide as an information source; two districts cited the principal; and two districts cited brochures. 45

50 Figure 8. Sources through which districts provide information to students about online courses for credit The districts that do not provide information to their students about online courses share similar characteristics. Most of these districts are small (enrollment less than 1000) and rural. Sixty percent of these districts have no high school and almost three quarters responded that no students are permitted to take online courses for credit. Districts general comments on online courses The survey allowed a space for districts to make any comments or express any concerns about online courses. Below are several quotations taken from respondents comments and concerns. The comments and concerns can be categorized into six topic areas: 1) online course quality; 2) online course completion rates; 3) cost and funding; 4) expansion of online courses; 5) appropriateness of online courses for students; and 6) accountability. Online Course Quality Students who have been schooled with online classes and then enroll at our school are usually behind our students. I believe that online learning will continue to play a large role in educating our students. By tying in with associations like INACOL [International Association for K 12 Online Learning] we can insure that we are using quality materials. I do worry about the education field being afraid 46

51 of this new endeavor or trying to over regulate it. My experience is that the competitive market will eliminate the poor materials and push the level of quality higher. My main concern is that someday most students will take their high school courses online and teachers will no longer be needed. I think the quality of education would suffer because of this. I know they can go to chat rooms etc. for their interaction; however, I don't think it will be the same. We are cautious about preserving the integrity of our diploma and offer limited online opportunities unless we can fully vet the class and provide proctored assessments. We have just begun using online courses for two reasons: increase electives and credit retrieval. Because we are so small, we can individualize the program for each student. Teachers have many concerns regarding the quality and the actual student learning that happens while completing the course. We require students to complete the courses on site with teacher supervision and contact. Instruction cannot be of high quality if it is remote. Online course completion rates Completion rates drop off without a face to face component built into the class. I wonder how effective the funds used to support online classes are in terms of completion rates for courses without that support system built in. Online learning is a complex issue. The course completion and success rate in online learning is not very good. Many students and parents perceive that online learning is a simple solution for students who have gotten behind. There is some concern that the work submitted is actually the work of the registered student and not the parent. We have concerns about the completion rate with at risk students and vendor driven courses. We also look at the online courses as one piece of our overall offerings to students. In many cases we feel that a "blended online class" would be a more successful and appropriate offering for a student than a "online only" class. Our students are successful in online classes because of the support from the DLC and because we provide a class time and a teacher to provide added support while the student works on the class. We have found it to be important for most students' success to provide both a time structure and a teacher to monitor the progress of the students and to assist them with 47

52 problems. And there are sure to be problems. Since we found the DLC, online classes are so much easier that we are amazed. Cost and funding Cost of courses is big; we have a really limited budget. Also, the number of quality computers is limited; we are living on p4 computers right now. I would love to see the state provide funding opportunities for online courses. The cost for students is one of the biggest issues we have. Expansion of online courses Currently we use on line course primarily for credit retrieval and AP course. However, we are currently investigating using online courses as an outreach to home schooled students. On line course participation should be a graduation requirement for all students in preparation for the work world or higher education. Would like to develop this capability locally. Time is one issue and funding another. Locally we have additional barriers in that high speed internet connections are few and expensive. Appropriateness of online courses for students Great for motivated students who will get the most out of their education. Not for everyone. Only certain kinds of students are successful in this type of learning. I believe in using online education as a tool to meet the needs of some of our students. It does not work for all. It allows students who cannot achieve course completion in traditional settings or circumstances. The sad part is that some students are missing out on the social interactions they truly need to be successful in life by just sitting in front of a computer. However, for some kids they need this opportunity and do quite well in this environment. I think you have to have a balance and options for kids. 48

53 It's not a bad way to learn for some courses, but upper level math is not a good subject to try to take online. Some courses just need a teacher. We have a certified teacher supervising in the room, but it is not necessarily a math teacher. Valuable option for students. Our ability to be flexible and offer more opportunities for learning for students is important. We need to be able to meet the diverse needs of our students. Decision making needs to remain at the district level as curriculum decisions are. We have learned by experience that online learning is not appropriate for all students. Leave the autonomy to us for deciding which students are appropriate for online learning. We are the experts, legislative initiatives are not the experts in such matters. Accountability Lack of accountability and monitoring for quality by state level. On line education is rapidly becoming a vehicle for supplanting the brick and mortar school. Traditional schools are finding "friendly" vendors and school district providers who claim state and federal dollars for services. There needs to be a careful study of the value of the coursework for content, rigor, quality and alignment to national and state standards. There needs to be a Legislative/OSPI/HEC Board task force assembled to review and determine clear guidelines for the use of federal and state dollars to be applied to on line courses. Some regulation of all of these on line course providers and the basic education funding attached to various models seems like a good idea for the near future! The lines have become blurred for what fits in existing policies. With the proliferation of on line learning we realize our policies and procedures are out of date and not adequate to address the coming needs. While we have not yet encountered student situations that do not fit our existing policies we realize we soon will. We have developed our processes and program over the last seven years. The ability to access state support or guidance has left that process to many uncertainties and variables that could have been avoided. In the above comments, districts express some wariness about online learning. The comments also reveal some interest in further guidance. The next chapter presents an analysis of select survey findings and discusses the implications and policy considerations that follow. 49

54 Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications Based on the survey results, it is clear that there is significant variation in online learning policies and practices among Washington State school districts. This chapter discusses key survey findings that are critical or useful to OSPI in considering online learning policy. The chapter begins with general comments on the variations in survey responses, and then discusses the implications and policy considerations of the following survey findings: 1) Online course providers: Variation among districts in the types of course providers from which students take online courses. 2) Restricting which students can take online courses for credit: The majority of districts restrict some or all students from taking online courses for credit. 3) Factors considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit: Districts consider multiple factors with significant variation across districts. 4) Tracking: A relatively small percentage of districts distinguish online courses on transcripts and track course completion rates, and there are discrepancies in how these things are done. 5) Quality assurance: Some districts rely on the course provider to review the course and ensure alignment with state requirements as opposed to reviewing courses themselves. 6) Access: Cost is a significant barrier and many districts do not provide information to students about online courses. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the state is taking steps to address some of the concerns raised in this research, specifically through the online learning bill SSB 5410 passed during the 2009 legislative session. Variations in survey responses The findings reveal significant variations in the policies and practices among school districts related to online courses. Some of the best examples of these variations are highlighted below: Sixty four percent of districts do not restrict the number of online courses a student can take for credit at a given time, while 31 percent do have a restriction. For those districts that have a restriction, the restrictions vary widely from one to six courses. 50

55 Districts gave 54 unique responses to the question of what factors are considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit. Districts gave 50 unique responses to the question of types of providers from which students take online courses for credit. About one third of districts distinguish online courses on transcripts, record course completion rates and collect feedback about online courses, and the way in which districts do these things is variable. These variations are not surprising given district autonomy and the fact that online courses are a recent phenomenon for which districts are still formulating policies and practices. Given the variations in district policies and practices related to online courses, there is an argument to be made that more guidance from the state may be called for. Online course providers Over half of districts respondents indicated that students take online courses for credit from two or more types of course providers. The findings show that there is much variation among districts with regards to the providers from which students take online courses for credit. In all, districts reported 50 different combinations of providers. The different types of online course providers and the variation in the types of providers that districts use makes it complicated to regulate online courses. Subsequently, determining the quality of online courses becomes difficult, especially since so many providers are private and outside the K 12 school system. To regulate providers and course quality, OSPI could conduct an assessment of online course providers and online course quality. In addition, OSPI could establish a more thorough accreditation or approval process for online course providers. Restricting which students can take online courses for credit As noted in the survey findings, only 13 percent of districts permit all students to take online courses for credit, while the large remainder of districts restricts some or all students from 51

56 taking online courses for credit. Stating this finding a different way, 81 percent of districts do not allow elementary students to take online courses for credit and 62 percent do not allow elementary or middle school students. The survey did not ask why districts make the choice to restrict students of certain grade levels from taking online courses for credit, but the implication of this finding is that there is some reason(s) why districts believe that online courses are not appropriate for students of lower grade levels. District restrictions on students in lower grade levels taking online courses for credit may be well founded and an argument could be made that the state should consider regulation on this issue. Currently, OSPI does not know how many elementary and middle school students take one or more online course for credit because the annual technology survey asks only about secondary student enrollment in online courses. To better understand the nature and extent of online learning in the state, OSPI should collect online course enrollment data for all students. Factors considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit As the survey results show, districts consider multiple factors in determining if an online course can be taken for credit. Districts responded with 54 unique combinations of factors. The large majority of districts, 79 percent, consider more than one factor; 51 percent of districts consider three or more factors. An implication of this decision being multi faceted and variable across districts is that it is less likely that the policy is widely understood by students and parents. A policy consideration that follows is whether the criteria for an online course to be approved for credit should be the same as for other types of transfer credits. There is reason to argue that districts should consider the same factors for any type of course taught outside the district regardless if it is online or not. If the state sets a standard for accepting transfer credits, it should regulate online courses too (unless the provider is the district) because in both cases, a district is honoring credits from another institution. 52

57 Tracking Distinguishing online courses on transcripts As explained in the findings, only 40 percent of districts distinguish online courses on student transcripts and those districts that make this distinction do so in various ways. This finding implies that one cannot be sure which classes are online classes when looking at a transcript. OSPI could require that, at a minimum, districts distinguish on transcripts which credits were earned outside of the district, regardless of whether or not the course was online. In this case, if a student takes an online course offered by the district, it would not be differentiated from other district courses. OSPI should determine which distinction(s) is important: whether the instruction is provided outside the district or whether the instruction is provided online. Subsequently, this determination introduces the question of whether transcripts should be standardized across the state. OSPI, districts, post secondary institutions and students all have a stake in transcript designation and standardization. Online course completion rates Only one third of districts indicated that they record online course completion rates, and there is variation in how these districts define course completion. This finding implies that online courses are not standardized to the extent that traditional courses are. OSPI should consider creating a standard definition of online course completion and to strongly urge districts to record course completion rates. Quality assurance The findings about how districts ensure alignment with state requirements reveal that an important piece of ensuring quality is working directly with online course providers. Many districts expressed that that they rely on the course provider to review the course and ensure alignment with state requirements as opposed to reviewing courses themselves. OSPI could evaluate online course providers based on course alignment with state requirements and then disseminate this information to the districts. 53

58 Access Cost was the most frequently cited barrier faced by students in accessing online courses. This finding could imply that students face costs because they want to take online courses for which the district is not willing or able to claim basic education funding. It is also possible that some districts are not clear on the ALE rules and when they can claim these funds. As explained in the findings, 64 percent of districts provide information to students about online courses and the most common sources of information are counselors, followed by teachers. These findings imply that that information is not universally provided and that sources closest to students are the most important for providing information to students. The finding that counselors are the most common source of information about online courses is significant for OSPI in determining how to disseminate objective information to students about online courses. How the state is addressing some of the concerns In the 2009 legislative session, the Washington State legislature enacted an online learning bill, Substitute Senate Bill There are two stated premises behind this law: 1) the legislature supports and encourages online learning opportunities; and 2) the legislature finds that there is a need to assure quality in online learning, both for the programs and the administration of those programs. 71 The law has four components that comprise the first step in improving oversight and quality assurance: 72 1) Provide objective information to students, parents, and educators regarding available online learning opportunities. 2) Create an approval process for multidistrict online providers. 3) Enhance statewide equity of student access to high quality online learning opportunities. 4) Require school district boards of directors to develop policies and procedures for student access to online learning opportunities. 71 Text of SSB 5410 received from Dennis Small, Director of Educational Technology, OSPI 72 Ibid 54

59 For the first component of the law, the state plans to provide objective information about online learning opportunities, including program and course content and prior course completion rates. In order to provide this information and make it useful, the state needs to define course completion and districts need to track course completion. These actions will address the concern raised in this research about tracking course completion. The state s plan to provide objective information to students and parents will also address the concern that some districts do not provide information to students about online courses. As the state works to implement this effort, it is helpful to know from this research that counselors play a crucial role in providing information to students. The second component of the law addresses some of the quality concerns raised in this research. OSPI and the State Board of Education are tasked to develop and implement approval criteria for multidistrict online course providers, which includes private or nonprofit providers and school district providers. This effort should help to regulate the quality of the many types of course provider. In the third component of the law there is a change regarding funding for online courses. According to the bill text, beginning in , there will be more opportunities for school districts to claim state basic education funding for online courses, which should alleviate the funding barrier cited by districts. 73 This change addresses the concern raised in this research related to cost in accessing online courses. Lastly, the fourth component of the law, which requires school district boards to develop policies and procedures for student access to online learning, should help districts to clarify policies for how to determine which online courses can be taken for credit. 73 Ibid 55

60 This research raised many of the same concerns that presumably led to the legislature passing Substitute Senate Bill However, the law does not address every issue raised in this research, such as the lack of data on elementary and middle school students enrolled in online courses and the concern about distinguishing online courses on transcripts. As OSPI works to implement SBB 5410, this research can offer guidance as to which aspects of district policies and practices warrant attention. Summary of recommendations Below is a summary of recommended policy considerations: Given the variations in district policies and practices related to online courses, there is an argument to be made that more guidance from the state may be called for. OSPI could conduct an assessment of online course providers and online course quality. The state needs to know more about online course quality. The state should consider regulation on whether students of all grade levels are permitted to take online courses for credit. If the state sets a standard for accepting transfer credits, it should regulate online courses too (unless the provider is the district) because in both cases, a district is honoring credits from outside institution. OSPI should consider creating a standard definition of online course completion and to strongly urge districts to record course completion rates. OSPI should consider setting a standard for distinguishing online courses on transcripts. OSPI could do an evaluation of online course providers based on course alignment with state requirements and then distribute this information to the districts. 56

61 References Burwell, Kelsey. Washington State Online Learning Policies and Programs. Senate Early Learning & K 12 Education Committee, July 31, Cavanaugh, Cathy, Kathy Jo Gillan, Jeff Kromrey, Melinda Hess, and Robert Blomeyer. The Effects of Distance Education on K 12 Student Outcomes: A Meta Analysis. Learning Point Associates, October King, James W., Gwen C. Nugent, Earl B. Russell, Jenni Eich, and Dara D. Lacy. Policy Frameworks for Distance Education: Implications for Decision Makers. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration III, no. Number II (Spring 2000). North American Council for Online Learning. Effectiveness of K 12 Online Learning, summary.pdf. Picciano, Anthony G., and Jeff Seaman. K 12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. The Sloan Consortium, January K 12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. The Sloan Consortium, Representative Hunter. Legislative Bill Washington State Legislature, January Rice, Kerry Lynn. A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K 12 Context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38, no. 4 (Summer 2006): Simonson, Michael. Policy and Distance Education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3(2) (2002): v vii. Smith, Rosina, Tom Clark, and Robert L. Blomeyer. A Synthesis of New Research on K 12 Online Learning. Learning Point Associates, Washington State Board of Education. Online Learning Policy Issues, Memo , May 14, Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Technology Survey Full Results, Education Technology Survey Results Watson, John, Butch Gemin, and Jennifer Ryan. Keeping Pace with K 12 Online Learning: A Review of State Level Policy and Practice. Evergreen Consulting Associates, November WestEd with Edvance Research. Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges and Strategies for Success. U.S. Department of Education, July

62 Zandberg, Izabella, and Laurie Lewis. Technology Based Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: and U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, June

63 Appendix A: Survey Dear Colleagues, The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is directing a survey of Washington State school districts to learn more about policies and practices related to online learning in our state. The survey is designed to find out what district policies are in effect governing K 12 educational courses that take place entirely online. A graduate student at the University Of Washington is conducting the survey and will write a report on the results. OSPI will use the information gathered in this survey to inform statewide policymakers about online learning in Washington's K 12 schools. You will be able to see a summary of the results once they have been compiled and analyzed on the OSPI website this spring at Access the survey using the link below. If there is a district employee who would be a better choice to complete the survey, please forward the survey to that person. To take the survey, click the link below or copy and paste the URL into the address bar of your Web browser. Please complete the survey by March 17th. Thank you for participating. If you have questions or problems, please contact [email protected] Torrey Morgan, Graduate Student Evans School of Public Policy University of Washington =========== Dennis Small Educational Technology Director, OSPI Old Capitol Bldg, PO BOX 47200, Olympia, WA Phone: (360) FAX: (360) Cell: (253) Web Page: E mail: [email protected] 59

64 K-12 Online Learning in Washington State Thank you for participating in this survey of Washington State School Districts. In your responses, please consider only fully online courses. A fully online course is any course that is delivered entirely online, with no face-to-face component. Name of your school district [Note: specific answers will not be reported using district names]: Question 1 In your district, which students are permitted to take online courses for credit? All None Only middle and high school students Only middle school students Only high school students Other: Question 2 Is there a restriction on the number of online courses a student can take for credit at a given time? Yes No If yes, what is the maximum number of courses? 60

65 Question 3 Is there a restriction on the overall number of online courses taken for credit during one s high school career? Yes No If yes, what is the maximum number of courses? Question 4 Who decides which online courses not provided by your district can be taken for credit and how much credit is given? Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent District Curriculum Director District Curriculum Review Committee School Principal Teacher It is governed by school board policy Other: Question 5 Does your district have other policies or procedures in place (in addition to those addressed in questions 2-4) to handle requests from students to take one or more online courses for credit? Yes No If yes, please explain: 61

66 Question 6 What factors are considered in determining if an online course can be taken for credit? (Check all that apply) Type of course (i.e., Advanced Placement course, elective course, core course, etc.) Online course provider Student s grade level Course content Student s performance in course (i.e., letter grade or overall percentage score) Other: Question 7 From which course providers do students take online courses for credit? (Check all that apply) Your district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district or a school in the district) Another district, or schools in another district in Washington State State virtual school in another state Districts or schools in other states (other than a state virtual school) Postsecondary institution Nonprofit or commercial provider Other: Question 8 Which types of online courses are likely to be approved for high school credit? (Check all that apply) Advanced placement course Course for college credit (i.e. Running Start) Elective course Core course required for graduation Credit recovery All courses are equally likely to be approved for credit Course type is not a significant factor in whether a course is approved for credit Other: 62

67 Question 9 Which types of online courses are likely to be approved for credit for middle school students? (Check all that apply) None (middle school students are not permitted to take online courses for credit) Core course required for grade level completion Elective course All courses are equally likely to be approved for credit Course type is not a significant factor in whether a course is approved for credit Other: Question 10 From your perspective, what, if any, barriers do students face in accessing online courses? (Check all that apply) None Cost Lack of information about online course offerings Limited access to computers Limited access to reliable Internet connection Limited online course offerings Other: Question 11 Through what sources, if any, does your district provide information to students about online courses? (Check all that apply) None School websites Daily or weekly bulletin Student handbook Mailing(s) to parents Teachers Counselors 63

68 Advisory Other: Question 12 In your district, are online courses used as a tool to help at-risk students complete their high school degrees? Yes No If yes, please explain how: Question 13 Who pays for online high school courses for credit under the following circumstances: Advanced Placement courses Student School Other: Courses for college credit (i.e. Running Start) Student School Other: Core courses required for graduation Student School Other: 64

69 Elective courses Student School Other: Credit recovery Student School Other: Courses beyond 1.0 FTE Student School Other: Question 14 Are online courses distinguished from regular courses on student transcripts? Yes No If yes, how? Question 15 Does your district record online course completion rates? Yes No If yes, how is course completion defined? 65

70 Question 16 Does your district collect feedback about online course quality? Yes No If yes, how and from whom (e.g., students, parents, teachers, counselors)? Question 17 What actions, if any, does your district take to ensure that online courses are aligned with Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) and/or Classroom Based Assessments (CBAs) and fit with regular curriculum? Question 18 Is there anything else your district does to ensure the quality of the online courses? Yes No If yes, please explain: 66

71 Question 19 If your district provides online courses internally, what kind of professional development, if any, does your district require for a teacher to be qualified to be an online instructor? Question 20 Please share any other comments or concerns you have about online courses. Questions or Comments? Contact Torrey Morgan at [email protected] 67