How California Superintendents Can Bust Through Policies to Implement Blended Learning

By 09/19/2014 0 Comments

Over the past several years, I have presented at several meetings of California’s Santa Clara County superintendents about blended learning and its potential to create schools that can personalize learning for each student to help each succeed.

During the question and answer period that followed each of my presentations, there was a recurring theme. Many of the superintendents were excited about the topic and the potential of blended learning, but then started expressing consternation about how they couldn’t implement blended learning because they had to deal with far more policy and regulatory restrictions than those with which California’s charter schools had to contend. The list of barriers would begin.

Also in the room, however, were a handful of superintendents who had helped their schools implement blended learning. Their districts were seeing some exciting results.

While frustration mounted among many of the superintendents at their inability to implement blended learning given California’s restrictive regulatory environment, frustration also mounted among those who had worked around those barriers—some were real barriers while others were perceived—and yet couldn’t get the air time to help their peers.

A few months later, we convened several of these superintendents from both sides to come to our California office in San Mateo and spend a full day working through the issues. In the morning, the superintendents together brainstormed all the barriers that they saw or had seen in front of them. In the afternoon, we talked through each barrier and asked folks around the room how they had solved it. For virtually every barrier one superintendent had identified, another in the room had solved it.

Our just released policy brief, “Knocking down barriers: How California superintendents are implementing blended learning,” which I coauthored with Anna Gu and Meg Evans, summarizes our findings of the barriers and workarounds that stemmed from that day.

One of the biggest findings confirms what Rick Hess of AEI has been writing for some time: enterprising education leaders can find workarounds for most barriers, real or perceived. Leaders don’t have to accept the status quo or the popular explanations—or myths—for why they can’t do something.

The superintendents we talked to identified many barriers in regulation around staffing—particularly given the opportunity to use blended learning to redesign teachers’ roles. But the superintendents came up with solutions to these barriers to overcome teacher-credentialing limitations at the elementary and secondary levels, line-of-sight rules, class-size limits, and restrictive provisions in union contracts that specify the instructional and non-instructional time for each teacher in a given day.

There were also several barriers—and subsequent workarounds—identified around technology and infrastructure: grappling with a slow and unwieldy public contract code for technology and even furniture procurement; allowing for Bring Your Own Device programs given the state’s free public education clause; and struggling to provide sufficient technology access at school and home for all students if the district wanted to adopt digital materials. One barrier that superintendents worried about was how much freedom they had over adoption of digital instructional materials, which proved not to be a barrier any longer thanks to a policy change.

The University of California and California State University’s cumbersome approval process for online learning courses also proved to be a barrier that superintendents struggled to circumvent.

Finally, in the process of identifying so many workarounds to a variety of barriers, the superintendents also brainstormed several tips for their fellow superintendents, which we compiled into a bullet-point list.

My takeaway ultimately is that we need more practical guides like this with education leaders helping their fellow peers with their various solutions to the variety of problems and barriers they confront as they move toward blended learning. And policymakers could stand to read these briefs as well to simplify archaic, input-based regulations that don’t further educational outcomes for students given today’s world—but create a lot of headaches for the educators serving them.

-Michael Horn

This first appeared on Forbes.com

Administrators Get Disproportionately Large Pensions

By 09/19/2014 0 Comments

The Empire Center and several other organizations have published a database of New York teacher and administrator pensions that lists the pensions and service years of every member.

Where Does Government Education Research Really Come From?

By 09/19/2014 0 Comments

When Congress convenes in lame-duck status between November and January, taking up the future of NCES would be timely.

Is Character Education the Answer?

By Guest Blogger 09/18/2014 1 Comment

Developing teenagers’ self-regulation may require something other than parables, slogans, inspirational banners, and encouragement from compassionate teachers.

Where Common Core Is Not Controversial

Those who see Common Core as a curricular monoculture, a boondoggle for publishers, or a violation of local control would do well to come to Reno.

College Prep for All? Students Weigh In

By 09/18/2014 0 Comments

Should all students be given a college-prep curriculum? College students share their views.

Demonstrate College Readiness If You Want a Federal Grant or Loan

By 09/17/2014 1 Comment

Before receiving a federal grant that never needs to be repaid (as is the case with Pell grants and some loans), the recipient should demonstrate that they are worthy of support by passing an appropriate set of examinations.

Classroom Observations Offer Biggest Room for Improvement in Teacher Evaluations

Addressing the design flaws we have identified in teacher evaluation systems will bring districts closer to achieving the primary goal of meaningful teacher evaluation: assuring greater equity in students’ access to good teachers.

Wurman Testimony on Math and Science Standards in Ohio

By 09/17/2014 3 Comments

This testimony was presented before the Ohio House Rules and Reference Committee by Ze’ev Wurman, visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution, on Aug. 20, 2014.

Never Diet Without a Bathroom Scale and Mirror: The Case for Combining Teacher Evaluation and the Common Core

By 09/15/2014 0 Comments

Schools should seize this window of transition—when it is safest for teachers to ask for help (and for instructional leaders to offer it)—to completely reinvent the teacher evaluation process.

Posts by Authors

  • Mark Bauerlein
  • John Chubb
  • Martha Derthick
  • A. Graham Down
  • Joshua Dunn
  • Education Next
  • Williamson Evers
  • Chester E. Finn, Jr.
  • Jay P. Greene
  • James Guthrie
  • Eric Hanushek
  • Bryan Hassel
  • Emily Ayscue Hassel
  • Frederick Hess
  • Paul Hill
  • Michael Horn
  • William Howell
  • Marci Kanstoroom
  • Peter Meyer
  • George Mitchell
  • Paul E. Peterson
  • Michael Petrilli
  • Michael Podgursky
  • Andy Smarick
  • Bill Tucker
  • Herbert Walberg
  • Martin West
  • Blogs

  • Organizations

    Sponsored Results
    About the Blog

    The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.

    Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.


    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors