The pace of interesting news and information has been high lately, so instead of choosing one to focus on this month I’m listing a few. Let me know if any in particular resonate!
Online Learning Still Has an Image Problem
Let’s start with a reminder that those of us in K-12 digital learning aren’t alone in our challenges and frustrations. Some of the same issues exist in post-secondary education as evidenced by Online Education Has Come a Long Way—So Why Do the Myths Persist? from WCET. Key quote:
“Despite an explosion in online education offerings, the myths about its quality remain pervasive. One example: During last year’s negotiated rulemaking, one negotiator likened online education to watching a bunch of YouTube videos—a comment that the federal negotiator did not challenge.”
Not only has online learning at the post-secondary level “come a long way” in terms of quality, as the report states, but between half and two-thirds of all post-secondary students are taking at least one online course—and the higher estimate is probably more accurate.
Why is this important? From time to time, I hear the idea that we’re so close to K-12 online learning being widely understood and accepted. Just one more op-ed, one more presentation at a mainstream conference, and all will be well. The post-secondary experience suggests that’s not going to happen any time soon.
What happens when online schools leave Education Management Organizations?
To my knowledge, nobody has published the kind of study that Ariel Sokol did recently to address this question. The short answer:
“Schools that leave Stride / K12 often expect to operate more effectively outside the EMO model. The data shows a different outcome. Across multiple case studies, schools that separate from their EMO face enrollment declines, execution challenges, and financial pressure.”
More:
“In multiple cases, students appear to shift to other K12-powered schools in the same state, suggesting family affiliation with the platform and curriculum, not the institution.”
His focus is on Stride schools, but it’s reasonable to believe that the same dynamics would apply to Pearson schools and smaller EMOs as well.
The takeaway isn’t that schools should or should not work with EMOs. The decision to leave one should be made with eyes wide open: independence can create opportunity, but only if the school has the operational, academic, financial, and enrollment capacity to replace what the EMO had been doing. That may not be as easy as it appears.
Ariel’s blog is available here.
Why parents are switching schools
Why do parents and students switch schools? Tom Arnett and Michael McShane at the Christensen Institute have an answer. It’s quite similar to the study we did of online school students years ago—but with an important twist.
Arnett and McShane surveyed more than 2000 parents, and looked specifically at parents who switched schools compared to parents who considered switching but ultimately kept their child in the current school. One finding: “not switching is not the same as satisfaction.”
Key quote:
“…what moves families to act isn’t aspiration, it’s acuity. When a problem becomes acute enough—a child is unsafe, or visibly suffering—families overcome the social disruption, logistical friction, and uncertainty of switching even when it’s hard. Aspirational parents feel those barriers more keenly, and without the urgency of crisis, most don’t cross the threshold.”
Why is this important? I’m increasingly convinced that researchers and policymakers do not fully account for selection effects in online schools. It’s easy to demonstrate that measures such as graduation rates rarely capture the true picture of online schools. It’s harder with growth measures, in large part because growth measurement systems are complex to the point that hardly anyone can explain how they actually work (seriously, ask probing questions of the people who rely on these systems next time you have the opportunity!)
The Arnett and McShane study provides another data point that students and families switching schools are often motivated by an acute event, or a long-time problem eventually becoming serious enough, to force the move. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising that many of these students aren’t performing as well academically as their peers.
A reminder: K-12 education is really big
My AI tells me that “U.S. K–12 education is a 54-million-student sector, with nearly 130,000 schools, more than 13,000 public districts, about 3.7 million teachers, and almost 7 million public-school employees.”
I didn’t check all the sources, because those numbers, which include both public and private schools, are consistent with my expectations. I’m pretty sure they are directionally accurate.
It was this blog post that got me thinking about education’s scale, because the post is of a type: making an argument by noting a handful of examples from around the US.
This isn’t a terrible way to make an argument—I’ve done it plenty of times! But it’s useful to be skeptical when an article is all anecdotes, no data. Maybe the trend being discussed in the article is real; I wrote about microschools in my seven trends blog post. But remember: if you can choose from among 130,000 schools, it’s not very hard to argue by anecdote.
“Education research is weak and sloppy”
Key quote from the post from the insightful Kelsey Piper:
“Over the last two decades, it has become clear that social science work from the second half of the 20th century often does not hold up at all. The statistical methods used simply weren’t good enough to support the conclusions reached. P-hacking — or running tons of analyses until you find one that is interesting to report on — was widespread. The rate of outright fraud was much higher than many had assumed.
In response, many disciplines changed how they practiced science. They started requiring scientists to share their code and data, which makes it much more difficult to commit fraud or to introduce honest errors into the literature. They started encouraging, and in some cases requiring, “preregistration” — announcing the analysis you plan to do before you do it, to cut down on p-hacking. Various efforts got underway to reward replication and combat publication bias (the tendency to not share results if they’re not interesting), and people developed new statistical toolsets to detect publication bias and understand the overall state of the literature.
The field of education did none of this.”
Why is this important? Because weak studies get cited as reasons for policy changes—or stasis. Few people take the time to evaluate whether a study can be trusted. Digging a bit deeper and being aware of shortcomings can be valuable.
To be clear, I’m not generally a skeptic of science or research, nor is the author of the post. It’s the opposite, in fact: she’s making the case that education research needs to catch up to other fields to be valuable.
We welcome your comments in the DLAC Community Portal’s Blog Discussion Group. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to join the conversation.