More details on U.S. DOE competition for statewide virtual learning
Earlier this week we posted first thoughts on the US DOE competitive grant funds for statewide virtual learning. We are adding additional ideas here after reviewing the notice inviting applications.
As noted in the earlier post, the US DOE established 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”
Fleshing out these categories, key additional information, and our ideas further:
The estimated range of awards is from $5m to $20m, with the estimated average award being $15m.
The Department estimates that it will give out “13-14” awards with four awards under each category.
The project period is three years.
The grant competition is based in part on preference to “states with the highest coronavirus burden,” which in turn is “based on indicators and information factors…that demonstrate the significance of the impact of COVID-19 on students, parents, and schools in the State. This description may include additional data, including other public health measures such as coronavirus-related deaths per capita, or any other relevant education, labor or demographic data.” This description leaves much to interpretation regarding whether a state that has closed its schools, but had a low number of COVID-19 cases, would be a strong applicant based on virus impacts alone. Virus burden accounts for 40% of possible evaluation points, so this is an important factor.
Regarding “statewide virtual learning and course access programs,” the further explanation (pages 10-12) doesn't include any real surprises, with one possible exception describe below. As discussed in the earlier post, course choice (access) programs are very different than state virtual schools in how they achieve their shared goal of allowing students to take a greater range of courses online than may be available in their physical school. If a course choice program was well designed and could overcome political opposition, it could achieve much greater impact at much lower cost to the federal government than a state virtual school, by shifting the way state education dollars are allocated. Given that the DOE under Betsy DeVos has demonstrated support for ideas generally associated with conservative principles, such as vouchers and education savings accounts, it would be reasonable to expect that the grant competition would favor expansion of course choice over state virtual schools. Although state virtual schools exist in both red and blue states, they fit within traditional public education structures much more than course choice programs. To be clear, this is pure speculation on my part.
The definition of statewide virtual school is the surprise: “Statewide virtual school means an online education program available to public and non-public school students that provides full-time education and supplemental course work to students in other full-time education programs.” (emphasis added) Most state virtual schools are not schools in the formal sense and do not provide a full-time school option in that they don’t provide full special education services, state assessments, and other services and/or requirements of public schools. In theory these services could be provided by the state virtual school in partnership with the local enrolling district. It is unclear if the US DOE believes that most state virtual schools serve full-time students, or if they are trying to push state virtual schools to do so. It’s also unclear if they truly mean “and,” which would seem to require that grant recipients serve full-time students.
The required inclusion of “non-public school students” in grant proposals is notable because it differs from the ways some states have currently created state virtual schools and course access programs, limiting them to current public school students, or requiring that non-public school students pay for services. The US DOE is using the grant funds to push political priorities, much as the Obama/Arne Duncan administration did with Race to the Top and I3 funds years ago. Elections have consequences!
It is notable that very little additional information around “new field-initiated models” is given. Where the additional information for item #2 runs to more than two pages, the entirety of the new information in this “new field-initiated models” area is: “Applications that propose projects that demonstrate a rationale and that are designed to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale field-initiated educational models for remote learning. Projects should address specific needs pertaining to accessing high-quality remote learning opportunities.”
If we see any additional, significant, guidance, we will add a third blog post on this topic.