The Oregon legislature’s Joint Online Learning Task Force
met again (11/17/09). I listened to their meeting online. They have one more
meeting scheduled before the February special session.
(1) I am
very disappointed in their efforts. They have focused very narrowly on issues
relating to virtual charter schools, not the broader issues of developing
online education all across Oregon. And, even on virtual charter school issues,
they have focused on issues which can be resolved by the February session,
meaning, I think, issues on which there is now a political majority. This
approach leaves off the table most of the important online learning issues,
and, more or less, continues the status quo.
(2) At
this meeting, three members of the Task Force expressed frustrations with the
scope of their activities. Representative Dembrow said it was “frustrating” and
that he had “hoped to look at online education in a fundamental and
comprehensive way.” The school board representative (could not get name
listening online) said she “thought it would be a much broader discussion about
online learning, and not just about how we do online charter schools in Oregon.”
She wanted to get to “How do we get to the idea of providing online learning
opportunities for every student throughout Oregon.” Dennis Dempsey
(representing school superintendents, I think) spoke of supporting “multiple
sources of virtual education for all kids in the state,” and that maybe it was
time to look at the Florida model.
(3) What
the Task Force did not do was to identify, gather data, and estimate the costs
savings that aggressive development of online learning could bring to Oregon
education. My very rough estimate is that online learning could save at least $60
million from the existing $6 billion K-12 education budget in this biennium,
and much more after that. The Task Force should have developed more informed
and sophisticated estimates. They could get data unavailable to me.
(4) This
is my rough estimate of cost savings: Currently Oregon has 1-2% percent of its
students using online education. I think over the next six years Oregon could
grow online education to 10% of the educational activity (a mix of full time
and part time online programs). Online education cost about one-half (see here,
Salem Keizer Online’s full-time high school program is about one-half the
average per pupil state fund payment) of brick-and-mortar education. Going from
2% to 10% is an 8% growth. Saving one-half of costs on the 8% growth is saving 4%
of total costs, or $240 million of a $6 billion statewide educational budget. Perhaps
only 1%, or $60 million, could be saved in the first biennium.
(5) I
think the cost savings could be even greater. I’ve proposed a statewide RFP
process that would use competition to drive the cost of online education down
further. See here.
(6) I’m
not for spending less on education. I would reallocate online savings to other
educational activities. High on my list are invigorating foreign language
programs (including online programs) and developing a Go Global High School Study Abroad Program. I’m also
supportive of more funding for early childhood education, smaller class sizes, more
pay for some teachers, and more funding for under-achieving students/schools.
(7) I
support Measure 66 and 67 to raise an additional $733 million for state
government. Much of that will go for education. I fear wasting $60 to $240 million
of that because the Joint Online Learning Task Force has not been more
aggressive in its advocacy of online learning. It makes supporting Measure 66
and 67 more difficult.
(8) The Joint
Online Learning Task Force, or some other groups, should get back to work. Have
that broader discussion. Delve into potential cost savings. And bring a
proposal forward soon.
Comments