Among the changes being proposed as part of the Update of the Education Act 1989 is the introduction of a new form of education provision to be known as a COOL (Community of Online Learning) enabling students to learn via online programmes instead of in regular classrooms.
On the whole, the reaction to this announcement has been less than favourable, with a majority of opinion in the press focusing on the potential pitfalls and shortcomings of learning in this way. Another well-known New Zealander added her voice of concern about the proposed cyber-schools referencing the experience in the US where the Walton Family Foundation has admitted their online public schools have been a “colossal disaster”. Details of this are also reported in the 2015 CREDO report
So, what are we to make of this? How could such a political decision have been made when the evidence is so compelling that it doesn’t work? Or does it?
The reality in New Zealand is that online programmes of learning have been available to students for nearly twenty years through the virtual learning network and, more recently, the VLN Primary. These programmes cater for the needs of learners who cannot access the full range of curriculum options they want at their local school, and have a very successful track record in doing so. The case for students requiring attendance at a physical school where they can develop social and emotional skills is not argued — indeed, they get the best of both worlds.
Of course, there are other students for whom the option of attending a physical school isn’t available to them — these include those in remote and isolated locations, those who may be school-phobic, and those with special health needs. Students like this have also had their educational needs met through online programmes for some years now.
So, why decry the efficacy of online learning? It seems that in the response to what has been announced, the debate has failed to focus specifically enough on what is of concern, and, instead, galvanised a lot of sweeping assumptions and generalisations that exist about online learning as an option. It also brings into question the sorts of ‘evidence’ that are being used to defend people’s positions in the debate.
As with any form of debate like this, there is evidence that can be used to defend any position. Take the case of charter schools in the US. There are some reports claiming they are failing and letting children down, while others highlight the successes where they outperform regular schools. The truth is, of course, that both are correct — there are both successful and non-successful charter schools as illustrated in a recent report in the Economist Magazine that identifies a huge variation that exists among charter schools in the US.
In making claims about the efficacy, or not, of any alternative education system, it is important that one is familiar with the broad range of evidence available. It shouldn’t be simply a reference to a single piece of evidence that happens to support the stance being taken, particularly if the evidence itself lacks sufficient rigour in terms of reliability and validity. I saw a senior educator in New Zealand recently reported as saying ‘there’s a truckload of research that says online learning doesn’t work’. As both a practitioner and researcher in this area, I agree that there are a number of reports that point to failures in online learning — but equally, there are lots that demonstrate its successes. Each report must be understood in terms of its context and how generalisable the findings are based on that. Sadly, we’ve become very influenced by the media sound bites that seem to suggest it’s okay to be selective in terms of the particular sections or even sentences we use to quote in support of our position.
In formulating a response to a new policy such as the COOLs, it is important to be clear about the things that are concerning us. It is evident that there is a significant amount of concern around two aspects of the policy:
- First, is whether the intention is for some students to do all of their learning online, and whether this will create systemic issues regarding accountability and monitoring of students, and whether this will also be detrimental to their social and emotional development. The debate around who might benefit from access to online learning programmes and under what circumstances certainly needs to be clarified.
- Second, and perhaps most debated of all, is, who will provide these online learning programmes? The policy, as reported, appears to leave things very open in terms of who may set themselves up as a COOL, and while there is reference to a rigorous accreditation process, details of what that might look like and what the criteria will be are yet to be determined. This is certainly another area where informed public debate is required.
As the debates around COOLs continue, it is important that, as professionals, we:
- Ensure we are clear about what it is we are debating (or objecting to) and not confuse the issue by casting aspersions on the very things that can work and are working for some students, and
- Are thoughtful about the evidence we use to support our case and take time to locate and understand the body of evidence that can be considered reliable and valid in terms of what it represents.
For further reading:
- How online learning is revolutionising K12 schools and benefiting students
- Summary of research of the effectiveness of K12 online learning (PDF)
- Virtual learning as an impetus for educational change (PDF)
- Learning at NotSchool, a review of study, theory and advocacy for education in non-formal settings (PDF)
- Research roundup: Online Learning
- Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (PDF)
Latest posts by Derek Wenmoth (see all)
- Coverage, congestion, and curriculum - January 31, 2017
- What’s cool about COOLs? - September 7, 2016
- Three tips for becoming a digitally fluent educator - August 3, 2016
At last … a reasoned, balanced response to the online learning issue. Good article Derek.
Thanks Richard – balance was what I was trying to achieve – important that there is a rigorous debate from an informed perspective as there are lots of fish hooks along with the potential benefits.
I agree – there are successful charter schools, but they are heavily outweighed by the disasters. Anyone who follows the charter school movement over the last 5 years or so, is aware of that. So, I don`t consider your assumption balanced.
Secondly, despite all the hooplah, advertising and investment in edtech, Pearson is failing dismally. Indeed their latest foray with the Gates Foundation into Africa has proven to be predatory in nature. MOOCS also have delivered dismal statistics, given the wide publicity and investment, so one must consider them roadkill as well.
And as a teacher who has taught online, in the classroom, sold edtech products, and taught in NZ, Brazil, Russia and China I feel I know what I am talking about, when I say, you have completely missed the point in this post. Edtech products are simply tools.
The art of learning is pedagogy. And e-learning, edtech, or COOL have very little to do with pedaogogy except as a tool. So, let`s focus on learning, not the tool. And more importantly critical pedagogy. This requires one to firstly consider social justice. So, really, we need to ask if students are going to be disadvantaged or not. And the answer is yes. The evidence clearly shows they will be.
Something else I wish to raise. In your article you do not touch on poverty or social class. Schooling begins with the most disadvantaged. The poor and oppressed. And it must be free. This is how we create a fair and equal society that respects social justice. A society that treats every individual exactly the same. This not a question open for debate. It is a given. So, to try and justify education for profit, simply tells me you are not a true educator, but a profiteer. One who is happy to divide society. Lacking the principals and moral fibre required to fight for justice in society, and instead, making the decision to support education for profit opportunities. Perhaps you are after a government contract? I don`t know. But it certainly makes me question your motives. Any education, that is paid, is tenuous.
I understand you are one of the leading education providers in New Zealand, and as Director of E-Learning, it`s impossible for you to argue the case for teachers, because you would lose your job. Which is entirely my point. You are not free to criticize even if you wanted to. You work in a private education environment, which skews opinions and forces people to act and do things that they would not otherwise do. And I dare say, you will be one of the winners if the legislation goes through. Right?
So, to argue balance and patience from that standpoint is ridiculous. You can`t, and you haven`t.
Regards,
Robert
Derek has given a very clear, considered view on this that really emphasises the importance of weighing up all the evidence. I think you may have missed his point entirely Robert, in what comes across as an emotional, knee jerk response. Derek is not promoting charter schools or privatisation here. He is merely making a point about about using evidence and maintaining balance.
And where does he refer to edtech products? You seem to view online learning as something that does not involve the teacher – is that correct? I’m just trying to understand the “case for teachers” reference.
In fact, the art of learning is not pedagogy. That is the art of teaching and Derek has made no inference that it is not important. Although I would suggest the art of learning is far more important.
You do understand that a significant number of public schools are likely to benefit from this legislation don’t you? Have a read http://netnz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/opinion-cools-opportunity-or-obstruction.html
Thanks for your response Richard – it’s important in this sort of debate that people can feel free to express their views like this. Many of your views speak directly to the points I was endeavouring to make.
I hadn’t meant this post to be a criticism of anything – rather an acknowledgement that there are real concerns here which need to be addressed with evidence and an informed view.
Thank you, Derek, for a balanced look at this issue. Having followed the heated, sometimes vitriolic, knee-jerk arguments in social media regarding COOLs, the voice of ‘let’s actually look at the evidence for and against with a view to discussing’ has been very much missed. I know for a fact that there are students out there who would likely benefit from this option, as Derek has mentioned. To make it easier for these students to access learning in this way would be hugely supportive to these students and their families. The fact is that not all schools are right for all students, and the more options that schools can provide for students, the more likely the students are to engage in learning. Education is not about what’s right for the teachers – it’s about what’s right for the students. Let’s discuss the idea of COOLs – look at the evidence all round – and go from there. Just stop making negative knee-jerk reactions and think about about the students that this might just benefit.
Thanks for your considered reply here Lorelei – the issue of access is a key to what may be realised as the potential here .
Thanks for your comment here Lorelei – there are definitely a number of perspectives to be considered here, and as you say, it’s the student and her/his needs that must remain central in the debate. I’ve just spent the day today with a group of 25 principals whose views would reflect yours – we live in complex times, and there are no easy answers. Emotional and knee-jerk responses are an expected part of what happens in the change environment, but finding the more reasoned, informed contributions takes more time and effort.
I’m strongly with Derek (and Darren and Lorelei) on this one. It’s disappointing that attempts to allow teacher-led innovation could be derailed by taking an extreme ‘privatisation’ stance. Let’s put learners first: not decisive polarising rhetoric.
Thanks Howard – the extreme privatisation option is certainly a concern where it exists, but it’s only a part of the overall picture here so needs to be addressed as such – not to minimise it, but to separate it out from the other aspects of the change which will most certainly benefit students.
The difference between what we do already do and what happens in the US is vastly different. But the extreme of the US system could well happen here as the policy is vague and with the influence of David Seymour will remain so.
Thanks for these thoughts Melanie. You’re very right about the difference between NZ and the US context Melanie, and I am not advocating that we follow that track – rather, that we look to the experiences in the US and other contexts to help understand the response being made to the drivers there (which are where the similarities are across the world) – and use this to help make an informed response in terms of the NZ context. In terms of political influences, they’ll always be there, and again, exploring the evidence from the international contexts becomes the key strategy in engaging with, and countering, some of these views.
The chance for students to access subjects of interest will be one of the positive outcomes of COOLschools. Especially when there are many barriers around doing this at the moment with places like Te Kura.
One of my concerns is the opportunity for children/students to be removed from f-2-f schools because their parents believe they can do a better job of teaching them at home. Some of these could be students with poor attendance and this won’t necessarily be the best thing for them as they won’t do more work online. They could be at risk students that are much safer when they are at school for those 5-6 hours a day.
Teaching students at home is not an easy option, parents need to realise that it will be a full time job and hard work. They will be the parent AND the teacher. It will not be a matter of placing the student in front of a computer and leaving them to it. They will need to help them when they get stuck and help keep them on track with their learning. The teacher at the other end can help them with the work, but the parent/supervisor is the real teacher in this situation, they are the one that will need to keep them motivated and on track. Check they are not off on another site doing something else.
It is easy for students to fall behind when working from a distance (e.g. Te Kura) as it is not an easy way to learn. It sounds fun, work at the time that best suits you, when you want to and when it fits in with your family etc. But all of a sudden you are way behind and nothing has been achieved and you are about to be withdrawn from the school as a non-returner. Teachers have been chasing you up, ringing, emailing, e-texting and annoying you. But you have been screening the calls and ignoring them. Now you are off the roll and can’t come back to school for the rest of the year. You are NETs if you are under 16 and have to go to a school, back to f-2-f, if you are over 16, tough.