Guest Commentary: The Fordham Institute on the 'Cost of Online Learning'

The Thomas Fordaham Institute is a nationally recognized organization that supports research, publications, and projects involving in elementary/secondary education reform.

Currently, it is sponsoring a series of reports on policy directions and guidelines for the virtual education movement.  So far, these papers have looked at quality control, the role of teachers and school finance. 

Now the institute has issued the much awaited report on the cost of online learning.

From the statehouse to the courthouse to the boardroom to the playground, this is going to get the virtual education community talking.  For years, online learning has been sold to lawmakers as a low-cost alternative to traditional bricks-and-mortar schools.

But virtual charter management companies--non-profits and for-profits--often say that states can't whack per pupil funding just because the kids aren't in a classroom. A quality education still demands a quality expenditures.

Last year Georgia went on a roller coaster ride over the per pupil expenditure for virtual charter schools. The aftershock of a Georgia Supreme Court decision on the matter is still be felt, and dealt with, in the Georgia Legislature.

With that as a back drop, the Fordham Institutes's paper, "The Cost of Online Learning" enters the scene. It says:

"In this paper, the Parthenon Group uses interviews with more than 50 vendors and online schooling experts to estimate today's average per-pupil cost for a variety of schooling models, traditional and online, and presents a nuanced analysis of the important variance in cost between different school designs. These ranges—from $5,100 to $7,700 for full-time virtual schools, and $7,600 to $10,200 for the blended version."

Click here for a copy of the full report. Also check back with Liberating Learning as we  look in-depth at the report and provide detailed coverage on the reaction to the report's findings from the online learning community.

Michael B. Horn: School Finance in the Digital-Learning Era: A Review

The Fordham Institute continued its critical series exploring how to create sound policy for digital learning in November with two new papers, “Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction” by Bryan C. Hassel and Emily Hassel, and “School Finance in the Digital-Learning Era” by Paul T. Hill. And more are on the way soon, including important ones exploring local control in the digital era and the true—and hotly debated—costs of online learning.
Hill’s paper tackles the other side of the coin of the costs of online learning, as he works through the ideal funding system that would promote innovation but strike the right balance with the need for accountability for public funds. The key tenets of his proposed ideal system are that it funds education, not institutions; moves money as students move; pays for unconventional forms of instruction; and withholds funding for ineffective programs without chilling innovation
It’s a good idea, too. But Hill’s changes are unlikely to be so simple to deliver. The reason why lies in his up-front analysis, when he writes about why today’s education system is so flawed: “Our system doesn't fund schools, and certainly doesn't fund students. It funds district-wide programs, staff positions, and so forth.”
Click here to read my complete review of Hill's paper and why I believe education funding needs a serious business model innovation.

Michael B. Horn: California Initiative Brings Breath of Fresh Air

It’s an embarrassment that California, the state that led the technology revolution in America, is, according to Digital Learning Now, last in the nation in using technology to transform its education system from its current factory-model roots into a student-centric one.
California policy has done its best to create a byzantine—some might say bizarre—set of regulations to frustrate the power of online learning to do just that. From geographic barriers that limit the ability of students in certain locales to access online learning to restricting blended learning in some unfortunate ways, California has created a maze to frustrate would-be innovators.
There have been some attempts by legislators over the last couple of years to begin to rectify some of these problems, but they have only stalled. Although some charter school operators, such as Rocketship Education and KIPP Empower, as well as some school districts, like Riverside School District, have created stellar blended-learning models, the most advanced school districts in California in online and blended learning have seen their efforts frustrated and curtailed. Even the exciting emerging blended-learning models appearing throughout California in response to tight budgets are limited in how innovative they could be by California’s regulatory landscape.
Against this backdrop, a group called Education Forward has introduced “The California Student Bill of Rights Act”—a proposed ballot initiative that would unlock some of the most onerous barriers to online and blended learning in California. But it would do so in an indirect way.
Click here to read more of my thoughts on "The California Student Bill of Rights Act."

Tom Vander Ark: Blended Learning Can be an Answer to State Ed. Budget Problems

It’s a tough time to be a state legislator. Recently, I spent a Saturday morning listening to Washington State House Education Committee testimony from school board members, teachers, principals, and parents of kids in special program all speaking against budget cuts.
No one in the room seemed to understand that everything is different this time.
As governors across the country prepare their budget proposals for the coming year, they continue to face a daunting fiscal challenge. The worst recession since the 1930s has caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. State tax collections, adjusted for inflation, are now 12 percent below pre-recession levels, while the need for state-funded services has not declined. As a result, even after making very deep spending cuts over the last several years, states continue to face large budget gaps.
The budget cuts will be huge in most state for several years to come, and you can be sure that education will be crowded out by Medicaid, corrections, and emergency spending on deferred infrastructure.
So what is a governor or state legislator to do? Each state is unique and will need to build their own list of budget cuts, but in at least one area, state policymakers need to lead on school based budgeting, blended learning, and performance-based employment.
That's right, blended learning is an important part of the solution mix.
To absorb 20 percent cuts and boost outcomes, schools will need to incorporate personal digital learning. By blending online and onsite learning, schools can save money and boost academic outcomes.
Click here to read more of my thoughts on why blended learning is a means to fix for state budget problems.

Tom Vander Ark: What Do Virtual Schools Cost?

That's a good question. Education policymakers from Georgia to Oregon and many points in-between are trying to find an equitable answer.
The Digital Learning Council will issue its 10 recommendations for state policy makers this week. The process has kicked off a school finance discussion that includes these questions:

• What do virtual schools cost?
• What is the best way to use school funding to promote achievement, completion, and innovation?

Click here to read my complete post which includes some thoughtful ideas from an online school operator

State Leadership Needed

The money should follow the students.

That’s right, I’m advocating for weighted funding that follows students to the best educational option (including those online).

Charter schools, often robbed of local funding, deserve the same weighted funding as well as access to public facilities or facilities funding. And, with the expansion and improvement of online learning, it is vital that “money follows the kid” be extended to the course level.
I explained my position is a pithy article for the National Journal