Online learning to drive charter schools’ innovation and expansion
Netflix CEO and charter school benefactor Reed Hastings attracted attention two months ago when he bought the education software company DreamBox Learning for $10 million.
Losing interest in charters and moving on to a new challenge? Hastings said he was asked.
To the contrary, Hastings said this week, technology and charter schools will reinforce each other. Savings from the use of new technology will fuel the expansion of charter schools, and their growth will force hidebound school districts in turn to adapt innovative technologies that will improve learning.
Hastings, who donated ownership of DreamBox to the non-profit Charter School Growth Fund, spoke at a strategy meeting in Palo Alto for Rocketship Education, a San Jose based elementary charter school organization that’s doing what Hastings predicts.
I’ve written about Rocketship and its CEO, John Danner. Its flagship school had 916 API score last year, making it the third highest scoring low-income elementary school in California. Rocketship has incorporated a learning lab into a quarter of the school day; the savings from the hybrid model of online and direct instruction reduces the number of certificated teachers from 21 to 16, saving each school $500,000 annually – a huge amount in low-funded California. That money is plowed back to raise teacher pay, improve instruction and pay for the next Rocketship’s building. Rocketship is opening a third school this fall, with the fourth in 2011. After that, it has aggressive plans to expand California and perhaps other states in the West.
What drew Hastings and Danner to DreamBox was the adaptive math software for grades 1 to 3. It can identify areas that individual students aren’t getting, then diagnose and break down the problem areas into pieces that the students will understand. Students go at their own pace.
Most basic skills already can be taught online. Hastings said that online software is reaching an inflection point leading to revolutionary changes in education. Instead of a $10 million investment, he said, imagine the result of $100 million research in online science courses, on the magnitude of the investment to create the foreign language instruction Rosetta Stone. It will take pioneers like DreamBox to open up the online market for other to invest larger amounts, he said.
Needed: ‘lighthouses of cooperation’
Rocketship’s hope is that improved online software and assessments can provide close to 50 percent of instruction. But Don Shalvey, the co-founder and board chair of Aspire Public Schools and now deputy director of the Gates Foundation, cautioned that students will still need the social and emotional support of adults in school in ways that cannot be done from distance learning. Non-teaching adults in schools will play larger roles. School culture will remain critical.
Some teacher unions will see online education as a threat to their jobs and fight its inclusion in district schools.
But Shalvey said online learning, by freeing teachers to teach critical thinking and problem solving and by creating savings that can be directed to teachers’ pay, has the potential to “raise the dignity” and respect for teaching as a profession – an exciting opportunity.
That won’t happen if charters act in their traditional role as competitors to district schools, and say, “We have the answers, and you don’t.”
What’s needed, Shalvey said, is what the Gates Foundation will be searching for: high-performing charter schools that serve as “lighthouses of cooperation.”
6 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
“…fuel the expansion of charter schools, and their growth will force hidebound school districts in turn to adapt innovative technologies that will improve learning.” Really? Hidebound? It’s tough to adapt innovative technologies when budget cuts have gutted Ed Tech and IT departments.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You’re right about the devastating impact of cuts and the need for more money for schools, KSC. But keep in mind that Rocketship gets the same allocation as district schools yet came up with the innovative model that allows it to plow back money to improved instruction and higher teacher salaries. Could districts move in the same direction — or would unions allow them to? That’s the question.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ditto KSC. But also state mandates, requirements to purchase only adopted texts, scripted curriculum that prohibits any kind of innovation whatsoever–these are the “hidebound” culprits. Why does every praise for charter schools come across as blame of “regular” public schools and teachers when they are victims of overly restrictive state laws that run counter to innovation?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It is very good to see the Don Shalvey comments. Regular public schools can be excellent. Charter schools can be excellent. Competition does not spur this performance, but teaching other school leaders and sharing ideas that work can improve educational outcomes for all our children. This requires cooperation not finger pointing.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Good points all around. John, you mention that this school has the same allocation as others, but I would be curious to know about the constraints they face, the mandates, and whether or not teacher salaries are part of their allocation. These factors could influence the extent to which the budget comparison is a fair one, and whether or not the programs are sustainable. Also, what kind of outside support is there? Non-profit foundations, donations, volunteers, business or university partnerships – all of these can change the outcomes. I’m not begrudging any school or students these opportunities, but some of those “hidebound” schools might be facing certain hard realities that inhibit their opportunities to change or develop.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Looks like about 25% of Rocketship’s 2009 income comes from private grants and contributions. That kind of boost to public revenues would certainly fuel innovation at the “hidebound” schools, schools also shackled by constraints & mandates not shared at Rocketship. I’m just a parent volunteer, but having served on district GATE & academic committees and site councils, I’ve seen firsthand the willingness and desire to innovate — right down to the union members. It takes a lot to nurture small flames of innovation into scalable, sustainable programs that function district-wide. One suspects that the combination of the flexibility enjoyed by charters, the private support as evidenced by Hastings and the substantial grants & contributions shown in their financials along with the small scale are great factors in fostering innovation like this. Ideally, charters should be incubators for innovation, developing practices that translate into the larger public school universe. Unfortunately, it seems that in practice, what we usually see are successes that replicate well only in the special environment of the “charter lab”, then a condemnation of the “hidebound” for failing to duplicate the experiment. Kinda feels unfair!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity