U.S. DOE announces competition for statewide virtual learning
On April 27 the U.S. DOE announced a grant competition that seems promising for proponents of using online learning in ways that will go beyond filling the gaps in emergency remote instruction.
In an email announcement, the Department wrote:
“The Rethink K-12 School Models Grant is aimed at opening new, innovative ways for students to access K-12 education with an emphasis on meeting students’ needs during the coronavirus national emergency. The competition is open to state educational agencies which can apply for funds in one of the three categories:
Microgrants for families, so that states can ensure they have access to the technology and educational services they need to advance their learning
Statewide virtual learning and course access programs, so that students will always be able to access a full range of subjects, even those not taught in the traditional or assigned setting
New, field-initiated models for providing remote education not yet imagined, to ensure that every child is learning and preparing for successful careers and lives”
Touching on each of these three:
#1, “microgrants for families” is critically important, but not an area that the Digital Learning Collaborative is working in directly. Simple math also makes us wonder how this item would be prioritized. The total grant funds are just over $300 million, and for simplicity if one assumes that “access to technology and educational services” might cost $300 per student who doesn’t have a device and/or Internet access, the entirety of the funding would pay for one million students, or about 2% of all students. Helping a million students is a worthy cause but that number represents a small percentage of the total need.
#2, “statewide virtual learning and course access programs,” should be broken down into two parts for analysis.
Plenty of examples of “statewide virtual learning” to address course access shortages exist in the form of state virtual schools that exist in about 22 states, and other programs. Other than Florida Virtual School, which is at least ten times bigger than almost all other state virtual schools, most of these programs have operating budgets of between about one million and $20 million annually. This is of course a huge range, and for the most part the level at which these programs are supported financially is reflected in how many students they serve. The grant funding could easily (at least theoretically) be used to support an existing state virtual school, or start a new one. The same funding constraint noted in item #1 applies here as well, because if you assume that an online course with a teacher costs $300, the total funds would support a million course enrollments. Again, that is useful but small relative to total need. Given how strapped state budgets are likely to be, this would also likely create a temporary bump in state virtual school funding, because state legislatures seeking places to cut funds are unlikely to step in to continue the higher level of funding from the federal grant. In addition, most state virtual schools--and fully online courses in general--focus on high school students and to a lesser extent middle school students, with very few options for elementary students.
#2 “course access programs” is much more complicated than the first two items. The DLC’s course choice 2019 study identified the ways in which such programs (“course choice” and “course access” are interchangeable terms) have been relatively successful in some states, but in other states have never met the initial hype. The key difference between course choice programs and the earlier items on this list is that course choice allows students to take online courses using their public education funds.
As noted in the DLC report:
“The key elements of course choice are:
The student chooses one or more online courses from one or more providers.
The student retains control over the choice with limited restrictions. In much the same way that open enrollment laws allow students to choose schools other than those in their districts of residence, course choice allows students to choose a single academically appropriate course from outside their district of enrollment.
A significant portion of the student’s public education funding (pro-rated to the per-course amount of funding) flows to the provider of the online course.”
This difference in funding path and needs has two major implications. First, the cost of setting up a course choice program is relatively low, and the program is financially sustainable because it taps into existing funding (ADA/ADM etc). Second, because it taps into public education funds, these programs are often opposed by at least some school districts and their supporters in state legislatures.
Also as noted in the previous section, course choice programs also tend to serve high school students mostly or entirely.
#3 “new, field-initiated models for providing remote education not yet imagined” is easily the most vague, and therefore the most interesting. Based on the DOE email alone it’s not clear what the parameters might be.
As a next step, we will be studying the 38-page grant notice inviting applications. We expect to post additional ideas, based on our review, later this week.