During the pandemic, the large majority of schools in the United States shifted to emergency remote learning for some amount of time, with the total remote learning time varying by district and region. It was clear at the time that many of those efforts were well-intentioned, and represented the best that could be done on the short notice that COVID provided. It was also clear then, and is being documented now, that many students had poor experiences with remote learning.

From time to time we check in on some of the education technology developments that are getting attention, by reviewing recent media reports and studies, and in this case exploring these topics with our Digital Learning Collaborative Executive Committee. Recently we have looked at virtual/augmented reality, gamification, and artificial intelligence, and specifically whether and how they are being used in K-12 education, if at all. Below we look at each of these.

At what level are online students funded in each state that allows online schools?

It’s a simple question, right? Give me a day to make a few phone calls and run some Google searches and I’ll get back to you.

Nope. In fact, as lead researcher Susan Gentz found in her efforts across many months, few things are murkier than student funding levels.

How do we motivate and engage students with teachers, content, and their peers in online courses?

This has been the question on a lot of new and veteran virtual school leaders’ minds. Although it’s not new, the issue has taken on new relevance because of the recent post-pandemic growth of digital learning. We chose this as a topic for two recent discussions with our DLC members, and are using this post to share some of the findings.

On a recent radio interview, I was asked how many students are learning online. I tried to reframe the question, not entirely successfully, to talk about students in various forms of digital learning. I’m using this post to delve further into this question and determine if my answer seems about right, or if we can crowdsource a more accurate number.

I must admit that it didn’t jump to the top of my task list when Marie Hanna of Ohio Connections Academy emailed me to say:

“I realize that policy and data are more in your wheelhouse but I thought you might enjoy the art show that was created by our students.”

It probably should have though.

Recent posts exploring the shifting digital learning policy battles elicited quite a few responses from readers. Several were from school leaders and other advocates who wrote in to link their experience to the ideas in the posts. For example:

Recent posts have looked at how the online school wars seem to be waning, first giving some general background, then looking at the recent GAO report, and finally looking at a recent study that addresses concerns about student outcomes. This final post of this series reviews the evidence to suggest that perhaps the fault lines of digital learning policy battles are shifting.

The first post in this series suggested that the online learning policy disputes are shifting, and gave some background. The second post looked at the recent GAO report and suggested that the report findings, and the response to the report, are evidence of this shift. This post looks further at one element of the online charter school disputes—the question of how well these schools serve students.

Last week’s post provided brief background on two decades of disputes about online charter schools, and suggested that the battles may be shifting. This post looks at one significant piece of evidence: the recent GAO report looking at online charter schools.

Political and policy disputes have been a key element of K-12 digital learning for most of the two decades or so that online schools have existed. Some signals now suggest that those battles may be shifting. This is the first of several posts looking at the background of the battles, and some of the signs of a shift.

How does transformation occur? Very slowly, then seemingly all at once.

(That’s a version of a Hemingway quote, and a good argument that as important as STEM education is, let’s not forget the humanities!)

It’s also a reminder that when a transformation is underway, it can be difficult to perceive it as such. Only when it’s well underway, or after, does it appear clear and perhaps even inevitable.

The recently released Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report for the 2020-21 school year provides a comprehensive, statewide view of all virtual learning in Michigan. The report findings highlight the tremendous impact of emergency closures and the sheer volume of districts turning to virtual learning during the pandemic. The report is based on pupil completion and performance data reported by public schools to the Michigan Department of Education and the Center for Educational Performance and Information.

In our field a commonly heard phrase is “it’s not about the technology.” After a thought-provoking exchange on a webinar recently, I’m rethinking how I use that phrase.

First some background: in a world that often overvalues tech and undervalues teachers and relationships, it’s understandable that many people—including me—often feel the need to say that technology isn’t the most important factor in online learning. As policymakers and others outside education look at digital learning, they often lead with technology, thinking about how some new technology is the key to transforming education. I’ve not strayed from the view that we need to be clear that those views are wrong.

When the CARES Act was passed, the bill that created the Elementary and Secondary School Education Relief (ESSER) Fund and the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund, every headline across the nation read: Superintendents need more, districts need more, this is not enough.

Recently I’ve been optimistic that perhaps digital learning in all its forms was becoming better recognized and understood, as when I wrote Online learning gains acceptance and They’re (mostly) singing our tune.

But the battle is still in early stages, as evidenced by an article in The Hechinger Report: Luring Covid-cautious parents back to school (which also appeared in the Washington Post under a slightly different title.)

I appreciated last week’s blog post, Replication is more important than innovation. To that observation I would add that replication is a requirement to innovation, for reasons explained below.

I vividly remember one of my English teachers in high school. I was 17 years old, and I think the class was American Literature. The teacher’s name was Mr. Carlson. Mr Carlson had a passion for literature. We read and had engaging discussions every day. His primary method of instruction was reading to us as a class. He had the ability to bring the characters alive with his inflection. The two books I remember most vividly were “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller (which is actually a play) and “The Metamorphosis” by Kafka.

Often when reporters and policymakers ask about the state of digital learning, they want to know “what’s new, what’s innovative?”

It’s an understandable question. But I think it puts the focus in the wrong place, because our field would be better served by consistent replication of best practices, instead of trying to figure out the next big thing.

There’s been quite a bit of digital learning in the news recently. This post highlights and comments on a few articles and issues that may be of interest but don’t call for a fuller treatment.

Funding online students
Let’s start with a simple note for the policy wonks: the Education Commission of the States has a new policy brief on how students are counted for funding purposes. It explores how online students are funded on page six. The brief is a useful primer on all sorts of student count and funding issues, which provides the baseline for any discussions about how funding systems should address online students.

A key element of the Digital Learning Collaborative is our willingness to consider views and data different than our own. That doesn’t mean that we take new information at face value, but that we consider the data, and check our own sources, experiences, and assumptions.