[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RAISING THE BAR: HOW EDUCATION INNOVATION CAN IMPROVE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-695 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota Carolyn McCarthy, New York,
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Kenny Marchant, Texas Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Susan A. Davis, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Martha Roby, Alabama Jared Polis, Colorado
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 14, 2013................................ 1
Statement of Members:
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education..... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education......................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bailey, John, executive director, Digital Learning Now....... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Sagues, Holly, chief policy officer, Florida Virtual School.. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Shelton, Jim, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Smith, Preston, CEO and president, Rocketship Education...... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Additional Submission:
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce:
Prepared statement of Bob Wise, president, Alliance for
Excellent Education.................................... 36
RAISING THE BAR: HOW
EDUCATION INNOVATION CAN
IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
----------
Thursday, February 14, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, Roe,
Thompson, Roby, Brooks, McCarthy, Scott, Polis, and Wilson.
Also present: Representative Miller.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary;
James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member;
Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services Oversight
Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore,
Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger, Communications
Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior
Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk; Jeremy
Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Meg Benner, Minority
Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education
Policy Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director;
Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press Secretary for Education; Jamie
Fasteau, Director of Education Policy; Brian Levin, Minority
Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; Scott Groginsky,
Minority Education Policy Advisor.
Chairman Rokita. A quorum being present, the subcommittee
will come to order. Well, good morning, everyone. And welcome
to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education in the 113th Congress.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us, first
off. We appreciate the opportunity to get your perspective on
the innovative ways schools and education leaders are utilizing
technology and implementing creative reforms to help raise the
bar on student achievement.
And Mrs. McCarthy, before we begin, I would also like to
say it is an honor to serve with you. I look forward to a great
term on this committee, a great hearing, first off, and
everything in between.
Mrs. McCarthy. Well, thank you. And I am looking forward to
working with you. We have a great opportunity to work on things
to make a difference in our children's lives.
Chairman Rokita. I think so as well. I hope so. And I think
we have a lot of commonality here, a lot of good
bipartisanship.
As a father of two young boys myself, I know today's kids
learn differently than previous generations. I can tell that by
the toys that are in our living room versus the toys I had and
tools I had when I was a kid. They are more adept at
effortlessly figuring out new technology and seamlessly
incorporating it into their daily lives.
Recognizing the wealth of technology now at our fingertips,
several states are working to alter the way education is
delivered to students. In Utah and Georgia, for example, state
leaders have approved extensive online learning programs, with
coursework that can be used in addition to the education a
child receives through the traditional methods.
Now this blended learning model, as it is called, provides
students face-to-face interaction with a teacher while
supplementing their education with online instruction. I find
it fascinating.
Online coursework has also become increasingly popular for
students who are interested in classes that may not be offered
at their current school, or who need additional assistance in
certain subject areas. As online coursework becomes accepted in
more states, additional families I think across the country
will be able to use these digital classes to customize their
child's education, hopefully at a lesser cost.
Virtual schools, which are currently offered in twenty-
eight states, provide another option for families seeking
additional choices. In the 2011-2012 school year, more than
half a million students were enrolled in virtual schools,
either part-time or full-time, a 16 percent increase from the
previous school year.
For children in rural areas, or whose schools otherwise
aren't able to fully support their needs, virtual schools
provide a critical opportunity to keep learning and stay on
track for graduating fully prepared for college or the
workforce.
In my home state of Indiana, if I can brag just a little,
leaders have taken steps to expand access to blended learning
programs and virtual schools, including virtual charter
schools. In 2011, Indiana legislators took action to allow more
of these innovative online institutions to seek sponsors in
districts throughout Indiana to start their own public
programs.
With 610,000 students currently on charter school wait
lists, virtual charter schools can provide a lifeline to
children who are desperate to escape an underperforming school
but cannot access a brick-and-mortar charter school.
As we have said many times in this committee, helping
ensure families can make choices about their children's
education is the key to strengthening our education system as a
whole. I applaud the state and local education leaders who have
embraced digital learning policies, and hope more states and
school districts will pursue these options in the near future.
In the past, my colleagues and I have supported policies to
provide states and school districts additional flexibility to
allocate funds to help support education innovation. And I look
forward to continuing exploring similar proposals in the 113th
Congress, and to a productive conversation this morning about
the impact of blended learning and other digital education
technologies on student achievement.
And of course, I will now recognize my distinguished
colleague, Mrs. McCarthy, for her opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
As a father of two young boys, I know today's kids learn
differently than previous generations. They are more adept at
effortlessly figuring out new technology and seamlessly incorporating
it into their daily lives.
Recognizing the wealth of technology now at our fingertips, several
states are working to alter the way education is delivered to students.
In Utah and Georgia, for example, state leaders have approved extensive
online learning programs with coursework that can be used in addition
to the education a child receives in the traditional classroom. This
blended learning model provides students face-to-face interaction with
a teacher while supplementing their education with online instruction.
Online coursework has also become increasingly popular for students
who are interested in classes that may not be offered at their current
school, or who need additional assistance in certain subject areas. As
online coursework becomes accepted in more states, additional families
across the country will be able to use these digital classes to
customize their child's education.
Virtual schools, which are currently offered in twenty-eight
states, provide another option for families seeking additional choices
in education. In the 2011-2012 school year, more than half a million
students were enrolled in virtual schools either part-time or full-
time, a 16 percent increase from the previous school year. For children
in rural areas, or whose schools otherwise aren't able to fully support
their education needs, virtual schools provide a critical opportunity
to keep learning and stay on track for graduating fully prepared for
college or the workforce.
In my home state of Indiana, leaders have taken steps to expand
access to blended learning programs and virtual schools, including
virtual charter schools. In 2011, Indiana legislators took action to
allow more of these innovative online institutions to seek sponsors and
districts throughout Indiana to start their own public programs. With
610,000 students currently on charter school wait lists, virtual
charter schools can provide a lifeline to children who are desperate to
escape an underperforming school but cannot access a brick-and-mortar
charter school.
As we have said many times in this committee, helping ensure
families can make choices about their children's education is key to
strengthening our education system as a whole. I applaud the state and
local education leaders who have embraced digital learning policies,
and hope more states and school districts will pursue these education
options in the near future.
In the past, my colleagues and I have supported policies to provide
states and school districts additional flexibility to allocate funds to
help support education innovation. I look forward to exploring similar
proposals in the 113th Congress, and to a productive conversation this
morning about the impact of blended learning and other digital
education technologies on student achievement.
______
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. First, let me say that I am
looking forward to serving with my chairman and working in a
bipartisan manner on the issues this subcommittee will be
addressing this Congress.
I see that our chairman, Mr. Kline and Ranking Member Mr.
Miller are here. So I don't know whether they are watching us
or what. But we will show----
[Laughter.]
But anyway, I would also like to welcome and thank our
esteemed panel of witnesses for joining us today. At this point
of time, there is little doubt that technology has the
potential to enhance and in many ways redefine the educational
field.
Much of today's workforce seamlessly incorporates
technology in every day work. Moreover, the skill set needed to
work with technology are no longer considered out of the
ordinary.
As such, teachers and school leaders alike must incorporate
real world technology in education programs nationwide, so
students can remain competitive in our global economy.
Earlier, I mentioned that technology has the potential to
enhance education. And I do not choose that word lightly.
Technology in the classroom is only helpful if we make a
legitimate commitment to it. Technology, if used sparingly and
without proper direction and instruction, can distract and
deter from the classroom studies.
We can avoid these pitfalls through fostering teacher and
school leader improvement and through family engagement, two of
my priorities this Congress.
Because students learn at different paces and have varied
access to technologies in their personal time, it is absolutely
critical that teachers and school leaders be trained in digital
learning practices and have the support of legislators at this
pursuit. Such training must be tailored to work for all
students, especially our country's most vulnerable populations,
including those who might not have strong computer skills.
The federal government has a role to help facilitate such
investment through appropriations. And equally as important,
the federal government has a role to listen and heed the advice
of local teachers and school leaders, who can speak to what
methods have proven to be effective.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the federal
government listening to what is working locally. This general
idea is the cornerstone of legislation that I plan to refresh
in this Congress. And that is the Teachers at the Table Act.
In regards to family engagement, I have championed
legislation that has called for the Department of Education to
establish an Office of Family Engagement, and for flexibility
for states to set aside Title I funding to support local
engagement centers. I believe such flexibility will ultimately
lead to families becoming more responsive to children's
studies.
The more families are engaged, the more likely they are to
reinforce the skill sets their young ones are learning on a
daily basis. Technology can lengthen the traditional school day
in fun, different ways. With well trained educators teaching,
with innovative devices, and families involved in the process,
I believe we can realize the potential of technology in
education.
I am eager to hear from each of you as the witnesses on
some state and local initiatives, as well as from Assistant
Education Secretary Shelton, who I hope can speak to the
federal approach.
Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the rest of
my time.
[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Let me begin by saying I am looking forward to serving with my
Chairman and working in a bipartisan manner on the issues this
Subcommittee will be addressing this Congress.
I would also like to welcome and thank our esteemed panel of
witnesses for joining us today.
At this point in time, there is little doubt that technology has
the potential to enhance and in, many ways, redefine the educational
field.
Much of today's workforce seamlessly incorporates technology in
every day work.
Moreover, the skill-sets needed to work with technology are no
longer considered out of the ordinary.
As such, teachers and school leaders alike must incorporate real-
world technology in education programs nationwide so students can
remain competitive in our global economy.
Earlier, I mentioned that technology has the ``potential'' to
enhance education.
I did not choose that word lightly.
Technology in the classroom is only helpful if we make a legitimate
commitment to it.
Technology, if used sparingly or without proper direction and
instruction, can distract and deter from classroom aims.
We can avoid these pitfalls through
fostering teacher and school leader improvement and
through family engagement--two of my priorities this
Congress.
Because students learn at different paces and have varied access to
technologies in their personal time--it is absolutely critical that
teachers and school leaders be trained in digital learning practices
and have the support of legislators in this pursuit.
Such training must be tailored to work for all students--especially
our country's most vulnerable populations including those who may not
have strong computer skills.
The federal government has a role to help facilitate such
investment through appropriations.
And equally as important the federal government has a role to
listen and heed the advice of local teachers and school leaders who can
speak to what methods have proven to be effective.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the federal government
listening to what is working locally.
This general idea is the cornerstone of legislation I plan to
refresh this Congress--The Teachers at the Table Act.
In regard to family engagement, I have championed legislation that
has called for the Department of Education to establish an Office of
Family Engagement and for flexibility for states to set aside Title I
funding to support local engagement centers.
I believe such flexibility will ultimately lead to families
becoming more responsive to children's studies.
The more families are engaged, the more likely they are to
reinforce the skill-sets their young ones are learning on a daily
basis.
Technology can lengthen the traditional school day in fun different
ways.
With well-trained educators teaching with innovative devices and
families involved in the process, I believe we can realize the
potential of technology in education.
I am eager to hear from each of the witnesses on some state and
local initiatives as well as from Assistant Deputy Secretary Shelton
who I hope can speak to the federal approach.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy.
I also want to welcome all the members of the committee
here this morning.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7-C, all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow
statements, questions for the record and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record.
Hearing no objection.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses.
First, Mr. John Bailey is the executive director of Digital
Learning Now. Mr. Bailey has previously served at the White
House as special assistant to the president for domestic policy
during the Bush administration, where he coordinated education
and workforce policy. He also served as the nation's second
director of educational technology.
Mr. Preston Smith is CEO and president of Rocketship
Education, which he co-founded in San Jose, California, in
2006. He served Teach for America at Clyde Arbuckle Elementary
School, where he earned the distinction of teacher of the year.
He has also served as founding principal of LUCHA Elementary
School in San Jose.
Ms. Holly Sagues--good morning--is the chief policy officer
for Florida Virtual School. Ms. Sagues taught in a traditional
classroom for 8 years before joining the school in 1998. She
developed and taught four online courses, and served as chief
information officer, before assuming her current position as
chief policy officer.
And Mr. Jim Shelton, my apologies, sir, I didn't get to
introduce myself personally to you earlier this morning. Thank
you for being here. Mr. Shelton is the assistant deputy
secretary for innovation and improvement at the U.S. Department
of Education.
He manages a portfolio that includes most of the
department's competitive teacher quality, school choice and
learning technology programs, housed in the Office of
Innovation and Improvement.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have
5 minutes to present your testimony. When you begin, the light
in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the
light will turn yellow.
When your time has expired, the light will turn red. Sounds
simple, not necessarily for us. [Laughter.]
At that point, I ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as
you are able. After everyone has testified, members up here
will each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
So without further ado, I would like to recognize Mr.
Shelton for 5 minutes.
Excuse me. Okay. My first meeting as chair here in this
chair, and I already messed up.
We are going to go with Mr. Bailey. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JIM BAILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
DIGITAL LEARNING NOW
Mr. Bailey. I have always wanted to be Jim, though.
[Laughter.]
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to address you today. Never in recent history has the work of
this subcommittee been more important.
Our nation's economic growth is based increasingly on human
capital rather than physical capital. As a result, the policies
and priorities involving education and job training will be
critical in shaping the future of our country.
Innovation in business and society is linked to harnessing
the opportunities offered by new technologies and innovations.
Technologies have changed virtually every sector from business
to entertainment to healthcare. Yet our education system
remains, by and large, the same as it was 100 years ago.
It is evident that a one-size-fits-all education system
doesn't fit today's generation of students. Students learn at
individual paces. They want to be challenged. They want to be
engaged. And they want an experience personalized just for
them. But our current system is not offering that.
Digital learning is a tool that helps fulfill the two great
premises underlying our nation's education system: providing
equal access to education opportunities for all students and
ensuring that those opportunities are high quality. Online
learning can bring highly effective teachers to students
wherever they are located. Technologies can help scale courses,
content, resources, tools and services.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush regularly calls on state
policy makers and leaders to use these new opportunities
offered by technology as a catalyst for new models and new
approaches to learning and to school. It is not about buying
computers. It is not about adding a layer of technology over
the current system.
It is about redesigning schools and classrooms and
instruction from the ground up with a focus on the individual
student. Digital learning enables customization and
personalization of education for each student. Students can
learn anytime, anywhere, in their own style and at their own
pace.
The Internet is challenging any model that has
traditionally bundled service by offering a dizzying array of
unbundled alternatives that consumers can assemble in their own
unique groups. The music industry is a perfect example of this.
Music traditionally has been bundled into albums. Albums
were bundled into others and sold at physical stores. Now
consumers can pick from any one of 20 million songs that are
individually sold on iTunes, Spotify or Amazon.com, and put
together their own playlist.
Education is also subject to those forces. Consider that
the Florida Virtual School offers more than 120 courses. The
Khan Academy offers a library of over 3,900 video tutorials on
everything from arithmetic to physics.
BetterLesson offers a database of more than 450,000 files
for teachers and 100,000 complete lesson plans. There are more
than 3,900 children's ebooks that are soon to be available on
Scholastic's new Storia app. And the OER Commons offers more
than 42,000 open education resources. All these being available
to be unbundled for students' personalized education.
All this is challenging the way that we think about choice
and options for students. Digital learning is rapidly opening
up choices available to students, not just over which
institutions they attend, but over what courses they can choose
from on a course by course basis.
All this is creating new quality opportunities and options
for students among, within and outside of school.
The challenge facing the digital learning revolution is
that we have faced a patchwork of antiquated laws and
regulations that limit or arbitrarily restrict these
opportunities for students. These barriers take three primary
forms:
The first is limitations. Some states are imposing
arbitrary caps on the number of students who can enroll in
online learning. Caps and limitations are a poor substitute for
a rigorous quality system that measures provider effectiveness
based on student outcomes, such as completion rates,
proficiency, student growth and other measures.
Low performing programs should be shut down. Cyber charter
school authorizers should use their authority to close down low
performing charters when not performing.
Outdated regulations is the second. Digital learning models
need the flexibility from outdated regulations such as seat
time and class size restrictions, and they need the freedom to
provide end of course exams throughout the year.
And last is finance. Policy makers need to rethink the way
that we finance K-12 education. Our traditional system finances
institutions, not learning. As students begin to increasingly
assemble a portfolio of education from both traditional and
online providers, the funding must be flexible enough to follow
the students to the provider of their choice, down to the
individual course level.
While most of these barriers best addressed by state and
local policymakers, there are opportunities for the federal
government to help accelerate the digital learning revolution.
First, provide incentives for states to eliminate arbitrary
barriers to online learning and blended learning. This
principle has been used in the past with Race to the Top, with
i3 and with other grants, including the charter schools grants
to help with funds awarded on a competitive basis to
incentivize state action.
Ensure that federal funds follow the student. As school
choice becomes more and more about not school choice but course
choice, funding needs to be able to follow a student to a
traditional school and then to some of the online providers
that this student selects.
And we need to modernize our education broadband programs.
Programs such as the E-rate should be modernized, streamlined
and better aligned to the reform agendas being put into place
by our nation's governors. Broadband and modern devices are
needed to support not just richer digital learning experiences,
blended learning experiences and online experiences, but also
for the next generation of assessments that states are putting
into place.
It is urgent that we reform our system of education into
one that prepares each student with the skills they need to
secure high paying jobs, participate in democracy, and engage
in the world.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Bailey follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Bailey, Executive Director,
Digital Learning Now
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
address you today. Never in recent history has the work of this
subcommittee been more important. Our nation's economic growth is based
increasingly on human capital rather than physical capital. As a
result, the policies and priorities involving education and job
training will be critical in shaping the future of our country.
In my remarks today, I want to focus on several major digital
learning trends that are reshaping the way we structure education and
deliver instruction as well as the policy challenges that limit these
innovations in helping more students and teachers.
Digital Learning
Innovation in business and society is linked to harnessing the
opportunities offered by new technologies. Technology has given us an
unprecedented around-the-clock access to information and services that
are changing the way we live and work. Technologies have changed
virtually every sector from business to entertainment to healthcare. In
each instance, these digitally enabled revolutions are empowering
individuals with more information, greater and more convenient access
to options, and more personalized experiences.
Yet our education system remains, by and large, the same as it was
a hundred years ago. Students growing up in an app-based, personalized
world are confronted by a system of education designed in an industrial
era based on an agriculture calendar. With so many options in their
personal lives and so few in their traditional classroom, it's no
wonder so many students have become disinterested and disengaged in the
learning process and are dropping out in alarming numbers.
For example, a recent report from the Center for American Progress
concluded that many students in the traditional school system are
simply not being challenged.\1\ Thirty-seven percent of fourth graders
surveyed throughout the country said their math work is often or always
too easy. Almost a third of eighth graders reported reading fewer than
five pages a day for school, and 39 percent of 12th graders said they
hardly ever write about what they read in class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Do Schools Challenge Our Students? What Student Surveys Tell
Us About the State of Education in the United States,'' Ulrich Boser
and Lindsay Rosenthal, Center for American Progress, July 2010. http://
www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/07/pdf/state--
of--education.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's evident that a one-size-fits-all education system doesn't fit
today's generation of students. Students learn at individual paces.
They want to be challenged. They want to be engaged. And they want an
experience personalized just for them. But our current system is not
offering that.
Our education system needs fundamental transformation, not just
incremental improvement. Technology has the power to customize
education so each and every student learns in his or her own style at
his or her own pace, which maximizes the chances for success.
Digital learning is a tool that helps fulfill the two great
premises underlying our education system: providing equal access to
educational opportunities for all students and ensuring those
opportunities are high quality. It holds the promise of extending
access to rigorous, high quality instruction to every student
regardless of where they live, income level, or special needs. Truly
improving student achievement will depend on the ability of our K--12
system to harness the potential of digital learning.
Digital learning models also offer an approach to ensure every
child has a quality education. Online learning can bring highly
effective teachers to wherever students are located. It can bring
quality books and text to assist with student literacy. Digital
learning models are often held to higher quality standards than
traditional courses, where they are paid only after a student completes
a course and passes an assessment.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush regularly calls on state leaders
to use the new opportunities offered by technology as a catalyst for
new models and approaches to learning. It is not about buying
computers. It is not about spending more money without changing the
system. It is not about adding a layer of technology over the current
system. It is about redesigning schools from the ground up with a focus
on the individual student.
Digital learning enables customized and personalized education for
each student. Students can learn anytime, anywhere, in their own style
and at their own pace. They can advance to the next level or grade when
they are ready, not when the class on average is ready. Advanced
students will not get bored and struggling students will not get left
behind.
Digital learning empowers teachers with real-time data so they can
pinpoint weaknesses and differentiate instruction to address them.
Digital learning expands opportunities and options for students. It
provides access to classes for students that might not otherwise have
the opportunity to take them, such as Advanced Placement. It gives
rural students access to world-class instructors for courses that would
not otherwise be available.
What is holding us back from experiencing this digital revolution
isn't technology. It is that we're not modernizing our laws and
regulations to allow teachers and students to take full advantage of
these new digital models of learning.
Most state laws never envisioned a time when a student in
Pennsylvania could take a course taught by a teacher in Florida through
a charter school model that was developed in California.
Instead of technology disrupting the system to create new models,
our entrenched system has constrained technology and forced it to
conform to our old models. We need to change that. We need to create
the policy, funding, and regulatory space for these innovations to be
tried, evaluated, and when successful, scaled.
In 2010, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former West Virginia
Governor Bob Wise co-chaired the convening of the Digital Learning
Council to define the policies that will integrate current and future
technological innovations into public education. The Digital Learning
Council united a diverse group of more than 100 leaders from education,
government, philanthropy, business, technology, and think tanks to
develop the roadmap of reform for local, state and federal
policymakers. This work produced a consensus around the 10 Elements of
High Quality Digital Learning which were released at the 2010
Excellence in Action National Summit on Education Reform in Washington,
D.C.
Digital Learning Now! is a national campaign to advance policies
that will create a high quality digital learning environment to better
prepare students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college
and careers. Our work is focused on building support for the 10
Elements of High Quality Digital Learning, which provides a roadmap for
reform for lawmakers and policymakers to integrate digital learning
into education.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Digital Learning Now, http://www.digitallearningnow.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unbundling of Education
Two of the most exciting areas within digital learning is the
growth around online learning courses and resources as well as blended
learning.
To understand the opportunities and challenges offered by digital
learning, one has to fully appreciate the broader change being
introduced by the Internet. The sectors and business models that have
been most disrupted by the Internet are those that serve bundled
services. The Internet is challenging any model that has traditionally
bundled service by offering a dizzying array of unbundled alternatives
that consumers can bundle on their own.
We have seen these forces at work most notably in the music
industry. Music has traditionally been bundled into albums, and albums
were bundled with others and sold at physical stores. Consumers were
limited to what was available at the store and had to buy an entire
bundle to get the one or two songs they wanted. Now, innovations like
iTunes and other music services are unbundling albums by allowing
consumers to purchase individual songs and create their own playlists.
Instead of being required to buy an entire album, consumers are free to
pay for only what they want. And instead of being limited to only the
music available in a store, consumers now can pick from 20 million
songs available on iTunes, Spotify, or Amazon.com's music service.
Education is also subjected to these same forces. The Internet is
making it easier and cheaper to not only access resources but
distribute content including textbooks, data, videos, lessons, and
entire courses. When combined with new web-based tools and cloud-based
systems, students have more educational opportunities than ever before.
Consider that the Florida Virtual School offers more than 120
courses. The Khan Academy offers a library of over 3,900 video
tutorials on everything from arithmetic to physics. BetterLesson's
database holds more than 450,000 files and 100,000 complete lesson
plans. There are more than 3,900 children's ebooks available on
Scholastic's new Storia app. And the OER Commons offers more than
42,000 open education resources and tools.
All of this is challenging the way we think about choice and
options. We traditionally think of school choice as institutions that
bundled education services: traditional schools, magnet schools, public
charter schools, and private schools. The choice has traditionally been
about selecting one institution over another--in essence, picking one
album of music over another. Digital learning is rapidly opening up
opportunities to unbundle these education services and courses. As a
result, the choice available to students is not just over which
institutions do they attend but what courses they can choose from on a
course by course basis. All of this is creating new quality options for
students among, within, and outside of school.
To illustrate this, consider a pioneering law in Utah that was
passed in 2011. Legislators and advocates drew upon Digital Learning
Now's 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning to develop a policy
that drives choice to the course level where students can select
courses offered by multiple public and private providers throughout the
state. The law allows dollars to follow students to the course of their
choice. The law does not cap participation, and importantly, it funds
success rather than just seat time. A pay for performance element
allows online-course providers to receive 50 percent of the state's
per-pupil funds for a given online course up front and the remaining 50
percent only when a student successfully completes the course. It is a
bold policy that seeks to not only expand options but also tie public
education expenditure to student success.
Louisiana offers another example thanks to the recent passage of
Gov. Bobby Jindal's sweeping education reform package. Students will
have the option to select courses from a state approved catalog as part
of the new ``Course Choice'' program. The law also specifies that funds
must follow the student to the online course with providers paid in
part based on completion of the course, not just enrollment. Students
in schools that receive C, D, or F grades in the state's accountability
system are eligible to select courses. Students in A and B schools can
participate too if schools they attend don't offer the classes or if
the school allows them to opt into a course.
Blended Learning
This trend of unbundled courses and content is also driving a new
innovation commonly referred to as blended learning. This broad term
covers a number of models that operate under a single umbrella
definition. First, the student learns in a supervised brick-and-mortar
location away from home at least some of the time. Second, the student
experiences online delivery with some control over the time, place,
path, and/or pace.\3\ In essence blended learning is about combining
the best of face-to-face instruction with the best of online courses,
content, and systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Classifying K-12 Blended Learning,'' Heather Staker and
Michael B. Horn, Innosight Institute, May 2012 http://
www.innosightinstitute.org/media-room/publications/education-
publications/classifying-k-12-blended-learning/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's typical classrooms are most often marked by a single
teacher teaching to a group of students. The challenge is that the
teacher inevitably has to ``teach to the middle'' which means some
students that could progress faster are held back and those that are
struggling fall further behind. Teachers often want to differentiate
their instruction for their students, but it becomes practically
impossible given the time constraints and limitations of resources.
Blended learning blows up this model by using sophisticated
technology which is able to assess where each student is on a learning
progression toward challenging college and career standards and then
develop a customized playlist of activities and assignments. These
systems often suggest small group assignments for students and also
flag students who need more one on one attention. Teachers are still
essential in this model, but their time is better spent working with
the students who need more support and helping to facilitate the work
in the smaller groups. Technology does not replace the teacher in this
model. Instead, it empowers the teacher with better data and with the
chance to better use the scarce time they have with the students they
have.
The Innosight Institute is maintaining a growing catalog of these
models.\4\ One thing is clear. These student-centric, flexible, and
results-based blended learning models are demonstrating success in some
of our most challenging and chronically underperforming school systems.
Often, these schools are taking advantage of the innovations offered by
blended learning technology platforms and combining them with the
regulatory freedom offered under charter school laws and other teacher
reforms to develop entirely new models of education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Innosight Institute's Blended Learning Universe database,
February 2013, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/media-room/
publications/blended-learning/database/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivering Results
These new innovations are still relatively new but early results
are promising.
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education published a
meta-analysis of evidence-based studies of K-12 and postsecondary
online learning programs and found that ``students who took all or part
of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking
the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. * * * In
addition, online learning has the potential to improve productivity and
lower the cost of education, reducing the burden on taxpayers.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation,
and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in
Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies,
Washington, D.C., 2010. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-
based-practices/finalreport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocketship Education is the leading public school system
for low-income elementary students based on California assessment
results. An SRI study examined the progress of nearly 600 students and
found that students who had greater access to adaptive learning
platforms achieved significant gains in overall mathematics scores.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Evaluation of Rocketship Education's Use of DreamBox
Learning's Online Mathematics Program,'' SRI International, August
2011: http://www-static.dreambox.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/pdf/
DreamBox--Results--from--SRI--Rocketship--Evaluation.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIPP Empower Academy's kindergartners showed impressive
mastery of all subjects by the end of the 2010-11 school year. At the
beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, 36% of KEA kindergartners were
reading at a proficient or advanced level as measured by the STEP
literacy assessment. By the end of the year, 96% were proficient or
advanced on the STEP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Year One Results,'' KIPP Empower, 2011: http://
www.kippla.org/empower/Year-One-Results.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The blended learning system Read180 is helping students
achieve up to two years of academic growth in one year. A rigorous
evaluation that met the high standards set by the U.S. Department of
Education's What Works Clearinghouse found that the program delivered
real results.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Scholastic Read 180 Intervention Report,'' IES What Works
Clearinghouse, October 2009: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
interventionreport.aspx?sid=571; Striving Readers Program Evaluation,
U.S. Department of Education, November 2011 http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/strivingreaders/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A randomized controlled study that met the What Works
Clearinghouse standards found that students attending schools that
offered a specific online Algebra I course scored higher on the
assessment than those enrolled in a traditional class. Even more
impressive is that the study also found positive effects on future
advanced mathematics course taking: in schools that offered the online
Algebra I course, 51% of the eligible students went on to participate
in an advanced mathematics course sequence by tenth grade, compared
with 26% of eligible students in control schools.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Quick Review of the Report 'Access to Algebra I: The Effects
of Online Mathematics for Grade 8 Students,''' IES What Works
Clearinghouse, March 2012: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/quick--
reviews/algebra--032712.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Learning Barriers
The challenge facing the digital learning revolution is a patchwork
of antiquated laws and regulations that limit or arbitrarily restrict
these opportunities for students. Policymakers at the federal and state
levels must reduce the barriers to innovation that further inhibit a
student from receiving a high-quality education through digital
learning models.\10\ The barriers take three forms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For more information on state barriers to digital learning,
visit the state-by-state report card provided at Digital Learning Now:
http://www.digitallearningnow.com/nations-report-card/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Limitations: Some states are imposing arbitrary caps on the
number of students who can enroll in an online course, the number of
online courses that they can enroll in, or where they can take an
online course from. Massachusetts imposes limits on the number of
online schools that can be approved in the state as well as various
arbitrary student enrollment restrictions. Arkansas has a cap on the
number of students that can enroll in a virtual school even though
there is a longer waiting list. Caps and limitations are a poor
substitute for a rigorous quality system that measures provider
effectiveness based on student outcomes such as completion rates,
proficiency, student growth, and other measures. States should leverage
the lessons learned from developing multiple outcome measures for
school accountability and the multiple measures used to measure teacher
effectiveness to better measure the success of online programs. Low
performing programs should be shut down. Cyber charter school
authorizers should use their authority to close low performing cyber
charters.
2. Outdated Regulations: If policymakers wish to provide modern
learning options to students, they will need to modernize their
regulations which were mostly developed in the 19th and 20th centuries
and still assume education takes place in a traditional school. Digital
learning models need flexibility from outdated regulations such as seat
time and class size restrictions and they need the freedom to provide
end of course exams throughout the year. States such as Ohio and
Pennsylvania have used ``innovation waivers'' to eliminate regulations
that hold back innovation and better services for students.
3. Finance: Policymakers need to rethink the way we finance K-12
education. Our traditional approach finances institutions, not
learning. As students begin to increasingly assemble an education
portfolio with both traditional and online providers, the funding must
be flexible enough to follow the student to the provider of their
choice, down to the individual course level.
While most of these are barriers best addressed by state and local
policymakers, there are opportunities for the federal government to
help accelerate the digital learning revolutions.
1. Provide incentives for states to eliminate arbitrary barriers to
online and blended learning. This principle has been used in most
federal competitive grant programs with funds awarded based on state
action. However, few of these programs address online and blended
learning. For example, while Race to the Top provided an incentive for
states to eliminate arbitrary charter school caps, it did not go a step
further to require states to remove barriers such as online school caps
or seat time regulations. The federal government can prioritize states
and grant recipients that implement smart effective quality control
policies or use a blended learning approach to accomplish the grant's
objectives in improving literacy, STEM, or other subject.
2. Ensure federal funds follow the student. As school choice
becomes more and more about taking some courses in a traditional school
and some online, these models need funding streams that are flexible to
follow the child to the course provider.
3. Modernize our education broadband programs. Digital learning is
more than just laptops, tablets, and broadband connections. But these
devices and broadband infrastructure form an important base from which
digital learning programs can be built. Programs such as the E-rate
should be modernized, streamlined, and better aligned to the reform
agendas being put into place by our nation's governors. Broadband and
modern devices are needed to support not just richer digital learning
experiences but also next generation assessments states are putting
into place.
The fact is that education is the only sector in the U.S. still
debating the merits of using technology to improve its mission and
explore new innovative models for learning. As a result our kids are
being left behind. It is our moral imperative to better serve these
students and that requires us to be open to new approaches and models.
It is urgent that we reform our system of education into one that
prepares each student with the skills they need to secure high paying
jobs, participate in democracy, and engage the world.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mr. Smith, please. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Hit your microphone there.
STATEMENT OF PRESTON SMITH, CEO & PRESIDENT, ROCKETSHIP
EDUCATION
Mr. Smith. There we go. Thanks. Thanks, John.
Good morning. Thank you for granting Rocketship Education
the opportunity to participate in the hearing. Thank you for
your time.
I am going to spend my time describing Rocketship and our
story, and how our K-5 public charter schools are succeeding.
Rocketship's successes speak directly to your key concerns,
primarily blended learning. So first a brief overview of
Rocketship.
Our mission is to eliminate the achievement gap in our
lifetime. It is a really bold statement, but it is what
inspires us every day in our work. We were founded in 2006.
Today, we have a network of seven K-5 charter schools serving
3,800 Rocketeers in low-income districts in and around San
Jose, California.
We are expanding rapidly. We are opening between one and
three schools each year. And by the year 2017, we hope to serve
over 25,000 Rocketeers and families.
Keep in mind, our students come from the poorest of the
poor families. Over 90 percent of our Rocketeers qualify for
federally funded lunches. And over 80 percent of our Rocketeers
are learning English as a second language.
And yet despite these hardships, our students have achieved
outstanding performance. This past year, over 80 percent of our
Rocketeers were proficient or advanced on the math standardized
assessment, which is equivalent to the most affluent school
districts in California.
And we achieve the success with the public funding, just
like traditional schools.
So how do we do it? There are three core pillars that we
have: personalized learning, transformational teachers and
leaders, and engaged parents.
First, we believe that every student has unique needs. It
is our job at Rocketship to figure out the right lesson, the
right Rocketeer and the right time, and deliver it. As a former
teacher, I found that incredibly challenging. And thus upon co-
founding Rocketship Education, I knew that we needed to focus
on how we would rebuild elementary schools from the ground up.
And we also knew that we would have to aggressively evolve
and innovate upon the traditional public school model. Our
theory at that time was simple, but it was also radical. We
thought that if we could integrate technology, tutoring and
enrichment together in something we called a learning lab, and
if we did that purposefully into the school day to support
teachers' instruction, that it would be powerful.
In the learning lab, online learning and tutors provide an
engaging basic skills instruction, so that our teachers can
focus on critical thinking and creativity and other skills in
the classroom.
We then further personalize instruction using customized
learning plans which are reassessed every 8 weeks based on
student data. Based on that data, we refine and adjust the
plans. And this means that we are continually tailoring our
instructional methods--so the independent online learning, the
tutoring and teacher-led instruction and practice, to ensure
that each student is learning at their own pace and the optimal
environment.
We have learned over the years that placing these tools,
especially online learning, in the hands of great teachers can
accelerate student learning. And when used in a targeted
manner, these adaptive and assignable online programs can
greatly boost student achievement.
Our unique approach allows students to realize a year and a
half of growth per year, 1.5 years of growth. And this has led
to Rocketship currently being the highest performing low income
elementary school system in the state of California.
Finally, giving our children and our Rocketeers access to
online programs enables them to achieve computer literacy, a
critical skill in the 21st century. The Rocketship model allows
our Rocketeers to leap over the digital divide.
The second pillar to our model is transformational
teachers. At Rocketship, we are striving to make teaching the
best job in America. We hire amazing teachers and leaders. We
pay them an average of 30 percent more than the school
districts, and we surround them with a ton of on the job
professional development and coaching.
Teachers and leaders are at the core of our model.
And our last pillar is parent engagement. We believe that
the first teacher and the primary teacher of our Rocketeers are
their parents. To that end, we make sure that every parent in
our school receives a home visit every single year.
Parents are involved in teacher selection. And not only
that, we engage with our parents as leaders, so that they can
go forward and advocate within their community, so that they
can make sure that there is educational options far beyond
Rocketship and beyond fifth grade.
So that is our story. Perhaps most important for today's
hearing is that Rocketship's model can be adopted by many other
schools across the country. The Rocketship model, and more
specifically blended learning, is something that any school,
any district can implement. And if done with focus and with a
focus on learning and mastering content, not just on
technology, it is powerful.
Further support from individuals like you and the federal
government is critical to making this happen, so that we can
better meet the needs--and unique needs--of every child in this
country, and one day, we can eliminate the achievement gap.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Preston Smith, CEO and President,
Rocketship Education
Founded in 2006, Rocketship Education is a public charter school
network for grades K through 5. Our mission--and it's bold--is to
eliminate the achievement gap in our lifetime. Today, we have a network
of seven schools serving 3,800 students, or Rocketeers, in low-income
school districts in and around San Jose, CA. Rocketship is expanding
rapidly, opening between one and three new schools each year. In the
fall of 2013, we will expand into Milwaukee. In addition to Wisconsin,
we have been approved to open schools in Tennessee, Indiana, and
Louisiana. By the year 2017, Rocketship will serve over 25,000 low-
income students.
Rocketship's students come from the poorest of poor families. Many
students receive federally funded school lunches. Often, both parents
work two jobs just to stay afloat, and in many families, English isn't
even the primary language spoken at home. Despite these hardships, our
students achieve outstanding performance on standardized tests. For
example, on the 2012 California math test, 80 percent of our students
scored at proficient or advanced levels, on par with the highest-income
districts in the state.
Rocketship achieves our success with public funds just like
traditional public schools.
There are three core beliefs, or pillars, that contribute to our
success: personalized learning, transformational teachers and engaged
parents.
Personalized Learning
First, we believe that every student has a unique set of needs.
Rocketship's objective is to deliver the right lesson, to the right
Rocketeer, at the right time. We customize each student's schedule with
traditional instruction, technology, and tutoring. An extended school
day ensures that in addition to state-mandated seat time requirements,
each child spends at least an hour or more, working on a computer with
a personalized learning program, or in small groups with a tutor.
Online learning and tutors provide engaging basic skills instruction so
that our teachers can focus on higher-order skills such as critical
thinking, reasoning, and creativity. They also free up time for
teachers to conduct more in-depth remediation and targeted intervention
with individual students or small groups.
When we founded Rocketship, we knew that in order to achieve our
mission we would need to innovate aggressively and continuously in
order to provide the type of public education that we believed our
students and communities deserved. Our theory was simple yet radical,
in the idea that technology, tutoring, and enrichment--a Learning Lab--
could be integrated purposefully into the school day to support the
efforts and accomplishments of teachers and better personalize learning
for students.
For our first five years, Rocketship purposefully divided classroom
instruction from our Learning Lab. Our intent was to learn how to
realize personalized learning in a systematic manner before making it
the responsibility of the teacher. We also knew that online learning
was still in its initial stages, but again, as we began to explore
content we discovered that this learning modality again granted us the
opportunity to meet the unique needs of students and further
personalize learning while also better maximizing our teacher's
expertise and time.
We then further invest in the instructional expertise of our
teachers as they build customized learning plans for our students.
Progress is monitored in eight-week cycles, at which point teachers
analyze student data and then refine and adjust these plans to guide
further innovation. This means that we can continually tailor
instructional methods--independent online learning practice, tutor-led
small group remediation, and teacher-led instruction and practice--to
ensure that each student is learning at his or her own pace in the
optimal environment.
A suite of online learning programs allows us to provide engaging
content and practice for students of different ages and skill levels.
Consistent across all of our programs is that they are interactive,
standards-based and linked to the Common Core, and adaptive or
assignable.
Placing these tools in the hands of great teachers can accelerate
student learning. When used in such a targeted manner, these adaptive
and assignable online programs can greatly boost student achievement
through basic skills acquisition and practice.
In addition, more and more at Rocketship, we are focusing on how we
are able to integrate data from the online programs, maximize small
group learning time, and structure our Rocketeers schedule in a manner
that ensures we customize each student's schedule with traditional
instruction, technology, and tutoring. Currently we are exploring the
next iteration of our instructional model that will focus on
integrating all of these instructional modalities (online learning,
tutoring, traditional classroom instruction, small groups, and more) so
that the amazing things that happen each day in each space can now come
together under the guidance and instructional leadership of our
incredible teachers and school leaders.
We believe our unique approach allows students to achieve an
average of 1.5 years of growth towards grade-level proficiency each
year and the results bear this out as Rocketship is the highest
performing low-income elementary school system in California.
Finally, giving children access to online programs enables them to
achieve computer literacy--an essential skill for anyone living in the
21st century. Our students' involvement with Learning Lab is a valuable
means for them to leap over the ``digital divide'' even if they do not
have computers at home.
Transformational Teachers
The second pillar is about transformational teachers. Rocketship
strives to make teaching the best job in America. We hire great
teachers, we pay them an average of 30% more than the school district,
and we surround them with on-the-job professional development, support
and coaching. Each year, the teacher, school principal and the academic
dean create a professional growth plan, with revolving seven-week
objectives. Every week, each teacher is observed (and often videotaped)
in class by the academic dean. The dean and the teacher then review the
video together to see what can be improved. Sometimes, feedback occurs
in real-time: the teacher wears wireless ear buds, while the dean
speaks quietly into a microphone in the back of the class, making
suggestions to improve the lesson. This means our teachers get very,
very good at what they do, very, very quickly. It also fosters
collaboration and community. Our teachers feel part of a team and enjoy
helping each other. With our rapid network expansion, Rocketship
teachers have many professional growth opportunities--they can move
into leadership roles as deans or school principals, or as regional
superintendents.
Engaged Parents
Rocketship's third pillar is about engaged parents. Rocketship
supports parents as leaders at home, as leaders within our schools and
as leaders within their communities. Each year, every family receives a
home visit from the Rocketship principal and the student's teacher. The
home visits give Rocketship a crucial sense of context for the student;
they also foster a collaborative partnership with parents. Parents are
welcomed into the schools as volunteers, although volunteering isn't
required. Parents also take part in the hiring process of new teachers
and hold monthly community meetings, which average over 75 percent
attendance. We support our parents in building strong support networks
at our schools and we are proud that they go on to advocate for
community-wide change to improve educational options for all children
in their communities.
A Proven, Repeatable Success Story
Rocketship is continuously innovating in all three pillars--
excellent teachers and leaders, personalized learning, and engaged
parents. Our continuous innovation is core to our success. We believe
that every child has the potential--given a great foundation--to go
farther than previously imagined.
We also believe the Rocketship model can be adopted by other
schools across the country. Since our founding, Rocketship has welcomed
visitors and observers to our campuses, and we believe that our three
pillars can be applied broadly to public education. In fact, the
scalability of the Rocketship model is allowing us to grow rapidly and
open new schools each year. That's why we believe we are fulfilling our
mission to eliminate the achievement gap in our lifetime.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Ms. Sagues, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY SAGUES, CHIEF POLICY OFFICER, FLORIDA
VIRTUAL SCHOOL
Ms. Sagues. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy and
committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify and for
taking the time to engage in thoughtful discussion about how we
might continue to improve student achievement.
Florida Virtual School serves Kindergarten through 12th
grade public, private, and home-educated students free of
charge as part of the Florida public school system. FLVS is the
only statewide Florida school district with five schools, three
part time schools and two full time schools.
During the 1996 school year, Orange County, Florida,
piloted a Web school with five online courses. The Florida
Department of Education acted as a catalyst and initially
encouraged a partnership between Orange and Alachua Counties.
In November 1996, the Florida DOE provided the two
districts with a $200,000 Break the Mold School Grant to
develop the Florida High School Project. Following an intensive
6-month period of planning and development, Florida High School
officially launched with seven staff members in 1997.
In 2000, the school changed its name to Florida Online High
School, and then ultimately to Florida Virtual School in 2001.
In the 2003-2004 school year, FLVS initiated partnerships
with Florida school districts in order to increase the capacity
of students who could be served online through an in-state
franchise program. For 2011 and 2012, there were a total of 31
franchises, which encompass 55 school districts.
The in-state franchise program operates as an extension of
Florida Virtual School. The franchise uses all of the FLVS
systems. And the franchise staff is trained in FLVS policies
and procedures.
This continual growth pattern in student enrollments
directly with FLVS and with the in-state franchise is evidenced
in both the program's success in providing educational choice
to students and the need for e-learning.
From the $200,000 grant in 1996, FLVS has grown to a budget
of $214 million for the school year 2012-2013 and has become
the model for distance learning initiatives across the globe.
FLVS is affiliated with all 67 Florida school districts and
also serves students in the remaining 49 states and in more
than 65 countries worldwide.
The FLVS faculty, consisting of support staff, full-time
instructors and adjuncts has increased to more than 2,000. All
FLVS instructors are certified teachers in the state of
Florida.
FLVS delivers more than 120 courses, including core
academics, credit recovery, electives, world languages, honors
courses, and advanced placement. Florida Virtual School is
fully accredited through AdvancED. Our core course curriculum
is NCAA approved. And all courses meet or exceed Florida
Sunshine State Standards, National Standards and are being
converted to Common Core Standards.
Driven by performance-based funding, FLVS only receives
funding for students who successfully complete courses. In the
2011-2012 school year, more than 149,000 students successfully
completed over 314,000 half credit courses. To date, Florida
Virtual School has served more than 600,000 students. And more
than 1.2 million half credits have been successfully completed.
Florida Virtual School has a strong focus on its core
mission, which is to deliver a high quality, technology-based
education that provides the skills and knowledge students need
for success. FLVS was founded on the belief that every student
is unique and learns at a different pace. Student advancement
is based on demonstrated competency, not on seat time in a
classroom.
At FLVS, students work at their own pace and advance from
one level to the next to achieve mastery of a subject. This
allows for a student to accelerate their learning or, if
needed, take more time to master the course.
With online learning, curriculum and scheduling choices are
no longer limited to local school offerings or a student's zip
code. Access is offered 24/7/365, from any place with an
Internet connection.
The delivery of instruction at FLVS is both exceptional and
unique, as instructors work one-on-one to personalize each
student's learning experience. Students communicate with
teachers regularly via phone, email, online chats, instant
messaging, discussion forums, webcams, texting and social
networking sites.
As online education evolves, FLVS continues to lead the way
with creativity and innovation. This year, a number of FLVS
digital innovations have emerged, including eight supplemental
mobile application products that align with our courses,
development of phase II of the campus-wide mobile app called
goFLVS, and a new game-based SAT review app called Word Joust.
As one FLVS student stated, ``Mine is not your typical
classroom, it is a door to the world.''
Not only does the quality of education received through
FLVS prepare students for success after they have completed
their courses, the flexibility and innovative class delivery
provides students the opportunity to launch their dreams while
still pursuing their education, achieving success in both.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I look
forward to fielding any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Sagues follows:]
Prepared Statement of Holly Sagues, Chief Policy Officer,
Florida Virtual School
Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy and committee members, I
am Holly Sagues from Florida Virtual School(r) (FLVS(r)). Thank you for
inviting me to testify about Raising the Bar: How Education Innovation
Can Improve Student Achievement. I have been with Florida Virtual
School for 14 of the 15 years it has been serving students. My plan is
to share with you our experiences and, more importantly, why we think
innovation is transforming education.
I want to thank the Committee for taking the time to engage in
thoughtful discussion about how we might continue to improve student
achievement.
Florida Virtual School, the nation's premier online public school
district, serves Kindergarten-12th grade public, private, and home
educated students free of charge as part of the Florida public school
system. FLVS is the only statewide Florida school district with five
schools--three Part Time schools (Kindergarten-5th, 6th-8th, and 9th-
12th) and two Full Time schools (Kindergarten-8th and 9th-12th).
During the 1996 school year, Orange County, Florida, piloted a
``Web School'' with five online courses. The Florida Department of
Education (FLDOE) acted as the catalyst in initially encouraging a
partnership between Orange and Alachua Counties. In November 1996, the
FLDOE provided the two districts with a $200,000 ``Break the Mold''
school grant to develop the Florida High School (FHS) project.
Following an intensive six-month period of planning and development,
FHS officially launched with seven staff members in 1997.
In 2000, the school changed its name to Florida Online High School
and ultimately to Florida Virtual School (FLVS) in 2001. Originally
operating as a recurring line item in Florida's legislative budget,
FLVS became fully funded via the Florida Education Finance Program
(FEFP) in the 2003-04 school year.
Also in the 2003-04 school year, FLVS initiated partnerships with
Florida school districts in order to increase the capacity of students
who could be served online through an in-state franchise program.
For 2011-12, there were a total of 31 franchises which encompass 55
school districts. The in-state franchise program operates as an
extension of FLVS. The franchise uses all of the FLVS systems, and the
franchise staff is trained in FLVS policies and procedures. The
continual growth pattern in student enrollments directly with FLVS and
with in-state franchises is evidenced in both the program's success in
providing educational choice to students and the need for e-learning.
From the $200,000 grant in 1996, FLVS has grown to a budget of $214
million (including the Health Insurance Fund) for the school year 2012-
13 and has become the model for distance learning initiatives across
the globe. FLVS is affiliated with all 67 Florida school districts, and
also serves students in the remaining 49 states and in more than 65
countries worldwide.
The FLVS faculty, consisting of support staff, full-time
instructors and adjuncts has increased to more than 2,000. All FLVS
instructors are certified teachers in the state of Florida. In
addition, 125 FLVS instructors now hold National Board Certification.
FLVS delivers more than 120 courses including core academics,
credit recovery, electives, world languages, honors, and 16 Advanced
Placement(r) (AP(r)) courses. Florida Virtual School is fully
accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools/AdvancEd.
Core course curriculum is NCAA approved and all courses meet or exceed
Florida Sunshine State and National Standards and are being converted
to Common Core State Standards.
Driven by a performance-based funding model, FLVS only receives
funding for students who successfully complete courses. In the 2011-12
school year more than 149,000 students successfully completed 314,593
half credits. To date, Florida Virtual School has served more than
600,000 students and more than 1.2 million half credits have been
successfully completed.
Florida Virtual School has a strong focus on its core mission,
which is to deliver a high quality, technology-based education that
provides the skills and knowledge students need for success. FLVS was
founded on the belief that every student is unique and learns at a
different pace. Student advancement is based on demonstrated
competency--not on ``seat time'' in a classroom. At FLVS, students work
at their own pace and advance from one level to the next to achieve
mastery of a subject. This allows for a student to accelerate their
learning, or if needed, take more time to master the course.
With online learning, curriculum and scheduling choices are no
longer limited to local school offerings or a student's zip code.
Access is offered 24/7/365 from any place with Internet connection.
The delivery of instruction at FLVS is both exceptional and unique
as instructors work one-on-one to personalize each student's learning
experience. Students communicate with teachers regularly via phone,
email, online chats, instant messaging, discussion forums, webcams,
texting, and social networking sites.
As online education evolves, FLVS continues to lead the way with
creativity and innovation. This year, a number of FLVS digital
innovations have emerged including: eight supplemental mobile
application products that align with FLVS courses, the development of
phase II of the campus-wide mobile app called goFLVS and the new game-
based SAT review app called Word Joust; a new story-based pilot middle
school math course; and the launch of a new content tool called Octane,
in collaboration with the Learning Management System provider UCompass,
that launches key content from within course pages.
These innovations and successes throughout the year did not go
unnoticed. Based on Algebra I end-of-course assessment data released by
the Florida Department of Education, FLVS students outperformed the
state by 15 percent in Achievement Levels 3, 4, and 5. The recently
released 2012 Advanced Placement Exam results revealed that FLVS
students outperformed the state of Florida in overall averages by 14
percent and global overall averages by 2 percent. In the Advanced
Placement courses, FLVS serves every kind of student imaginable; yet,
the completion rates remain one of the highest in the industry, proving
that a wide variety of students can succeed with individualization,
personal care, and a flexible pace.
Also this year, alongside UCompass, FLVS was awarded a Silver IMS
Learning Impact Award; Pam Birtolo, Chief Officer of Education
Transformation for FLVS, was inducted into the United States Distance
Learning Association (USDLA) Hall of Fame; and FLVS was named a
Learning 100! organization for its focus on professional learning and
development. In addition, Julie Young, President and CEO for FLVS,
accepted two educational awards: the 2012 Dr. Carlo Rodriguez School
Choice Award and the Florida Diversity Council's Multicultural
Leadership Award. These awards and honors truly validate how Florida
Virtual School lives its mission and vision every single day.
The legislative landscape continues to help shape virtual learning.
Effective July 2012, not only is Florida Virtual School able to provide
the Full Time option to Kindergarten through 6th grade students, but
FLVS is now able to provide these students part-time offerings as well.
In addition, FLVS Full Time students are now eligible to participate in
interscholastic extracurricular activities at the public school to
which the student would be assigned to according to district policies.
In June 2013, FLVS will be able to grant diplomas, for the first time,
to students graduating from FLVS Full Time. Furthermore, our FLVS
Global division, by legislative mandate, may license FLVS courses to
schools across the country and around the world. Revenue generated from
these endeavors is invested back into improving educational outcomes
for Florida students through research and development of courses. It is
this legislation and others that provide to students the needed options
and access to choose online learning before entering middle or high
school.
Students come to FLVS for a variety of different reasons such as to
better their grade, accelerate to graduate on time or to get ahead, to
take a course not offered at the school such as Advanced Placement
courses, to learn at their own pace, or to balance extracurricular
activities.
Florida Virtual School students come from all walks of life. FLVS
students are public, private or charter school students; medically
homebound students; homeschool students; student athletes; student
performers; working students; and students of families in the military
or with international commitments.
Students that have attended or are currently attending Florida
Virtual School include:
Aly Raisman, an Olympic gold medalist in gymnastics at the
2012 Summer Olympics.
Lexi Thompson, the youngest-ever female winner of an LPGA
tournament.
``Little Gator'' Noah Cornman, who tours the United States
racing his Bandolero race car at speeds near 70 miles per hour.
Luke Marks, ranked 16th among all surfers in Surfer
magazine's ``Hot 100'' feature, which highlights the best young surfers
on the planet.
Bailey Madison Hotte, an actress who starred with Billy
Crystal and Bette Midler in the movie ``Parental Guidance.''
Ashley De La Rosa, a finalist on ``The Voice'' season two.
Shannon Magrane, a finalist on ``American Idol'' last
season.
Laura McKeeman, Miss Florida 2012.
Zach Marks, the creator of GromSocial.com, a social
networking site for kids by kids.
Bailey Reese, founder/president of HeroHugs.org.
Willow Tuffano, who collected and sold other people's
trash, saved her money, and purchased her first house at the age of 14.
Brendan Santidriam, a young autistic man who loves movies,
placed third in the 2012 Florida Department of Education's statewide
Literacy Public Service Announcement contest.
Aditi Hota, recognized as ``The Best and Brightest
Student'' in Leon County, FL, is a thriving junior at Harvard
University majoring in mathematics.
Drew Willis, a student who struggled in school for some
time before being diagnosed with a brain tumor, is doing well and
thriving in his FLVS online learning environment.
As one FLVS student stated, ``Mine is not your typical classroom,
it's a door to the world.'' Not only does the quality of education
received through FLVS prepare students for success after they've
completed their studies, the flexibility and innovative class delivery
provides students the opportunity to launch their dreams while still
pursuing their education--achieving success in both.
The Florida Virtual School commitment is that the student is at the
center of every decision made. This is not just a line on a piece of
paper. This is what the entire FLVS team lives and breathes every day.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony. I look forward
to fielding any questions you may have on this topic.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Sagues.
Mr. Shelton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM SHELTON, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Shelton. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
McCarthy and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
You are starting to get a portrait from the other
distinguished panelists about the potential of learning
technology to impact learning in the field. I would like to
spend my time focusing on a few other examples, but also on the
role it can play not only in improving general education, but
also securing our role in international leadership, both
educationally and economically, for future generations.
See, I believe that advances in learning sciences and
technology provide the United States with a unique opportunity
to achieve our aspirations to expand educational access,
increase individual opportunity, strengthen national
competitiveness and propel economic growth.
But none of these things are inevitable. It actually
requires that we act.
To be blunt, we have reached another Sputnik moment, one
which challenges federal, state and local leaders, and
educational stake holders to have the vision and courage to do
what is necessary to retain and some would say, reclaim
American education and economic leadership.
Learning technology can and will transform education in at
least three core ways, if we act. First, learning technology
will greatly expand access and equity. Second, it will
transform teaching and learning. And third, learning technology
will dramatically accelerate and enhance research and
development. Not just about education and technology, but about
education overall.
Let me speak first to the issues of equity. The reality is
that many children across this country don't have access to
high quality educational opportunities. Education technology is
starting to intervene. In rural areas, it is providing access
to A.P. courses and foreign language courses, college level
courses, other learning experiences that were, heretofore,
unaffordable or inaccessible to the students in those areas.
The Niswonger Foundation is doing this work in Tennessee
based on a grant they got from the i3 Program. Across the globe
and here in the U.S., students are using online videos and
exercises to increase learning time, to actually get the
support that they need from volunteer or professional tutors
online, where they can't get those things or afford those
things on their own.
Tens of thousands of students, as you said, are already
enrolling in virtual schools. They are doing so because of a
variety of circumstances. Some are home schoolers. Some are
chronically ill. Some are doing it because they have other life
circumstances get in the way.
Children in our DoDEA Schools are benefiting from it around
the globe to get access to courses they wouldn't have access to
otherwise in their schools. Students with disabilities in a
variety of different ways are getting access to learning
content that they wouldn't be able to access without these new
technologies.
These are all great examples. But the reality is that we
can provide this unprecedented equity and access only if we
create the opportunity for those who do not have access to the
technology and use it to meet their needs.
The second core shift is going to be the shift in teaching
and learning itself. And you have heard about the ability of
technology to do several things. One is the ability to actually
transform the learning experience for the student by actually
making it personalized.
Teachers walk into classrooms every day with somewhere
between 15 and 60 students in their classroom. Secondary
students see 100 to 150 students a day. And we ask them to go
into these classrooms of students that have different levels of
preparation, different language backgrounds, different culture
backgrounds, different social contexts, and to meet each
student with the perfect content and instructional approach.
And in many cases, we ask them to do this with outdated
textbooks, colored markers and whatever creativity they can
muster that day to provide a great opportunity for learning for
their students. There is no other sector in this country that
we ask to perform this way.
If we provide teachers with the tools that they need, we
can not only increase their ability to be successful, but
extend the reach of the most successful teachers.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to do an online convening,
just really briefly, with a bunch of folks focused on education
technology. And one of them asked me, who would you rather
have, a teacher that is amazing or a teacher that is subpar
using technology? You always want the amazing teacher.
But the question is, can you take all of our teachers'
capabilities to the next level, so that it doesn't take heroics
to actually teach each of our students?
Let me end quickly by focusing on the role that we have to
play in improving research and development, so that we can
provide the kinds of tools that our teachers are going to need.
These things are not going to emerge just by bubbling up from
the bottom.
The reality is that three decades ago, Benjamin Bloom
demonstrated that one-to-one tutoring produced two sigma
improvement over classroom instruction, two standard
deviations, so a 50th percentile student is brought up to the
98th percentile.
The problem is we haven't figured out how to afford that
model. Technology, for the first time, is putting us in the
position where we can actually personalize education for every
child, putting the right resources in every teacher's hand, at
the right moment to meet that student's need, to pique their
interest, to allow them to explore.
These are things that are all in our hands. But we haven't
invested properly. Most growth sectors invest anywhere from 10
to 20 percent in research and development. Mature sectors, 2 to
3 percent.
Education invests 0.2 percent in research and development.
And our research agenda is fragmented.
So we have the opportunity now to reclaim American
leadership by building up the kinds of infrastructure that is
required, by doing the kinds of research and development that
is required to put us in the position, as it has before, when
we were asked the question what we were willing to do to win--
so far, we have answered the question, whatever it takes.
The question is do we really mean what we say about
education? Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Shelton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education
Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and Members of the
Subcommittee, greetings and thank you for this opportunity to testify
today.
I would like to speak with you about two related topics:
First, the potential of technology to fundamentally
transform education, dramatically altering the levels and pace at which
we develop America's human capital--our people.
And second, the vital role of technology in ensuring our
international leadership and affirming America's global standing
educationally and economically for future generations.
Advances in the learning sciences and in technology provide the
United States with a unique opportunity to achieve our aspirations to
expand educational access; increase individual opportunity; strengthen
national competitiveness; and propel economic growth. However,
realizing these opportunities will require new and improved approaches
to both educational innovation and the investments and infrastructure
to support it. To be blunt, we have reached another ``Sputnik Moment'',
one which challenges Federal, state, and local leaders, and educational
stakeholders, to have the vision and courage to do what is necessary to
retain America's educational and economic strength.
Learning technology can and will transform education in at least
three core ways:
1. First, learning technology will greatly expand access and
equity;
2. Second, it will transform teaching and learning; and
3. Third, learning technology will dramatically accelerate and
enhance research and development in education.
Increasing Access and Equity
Let me speak first to the issue of expanding access and enhancing
equity. If providing our young people with access to learning through
technology does nothing else, it will dramatically increase
opportunities to learn and excel for all students, especially those
isolated by geography or income and those simply hungry for more than
their schools are able to offer.
In rural areas, entities such as the Niswonger Foundation,
which is a grantee of the Department of Education's Investing in
Innovation Fund, have used technology to enable students to access
foreign language instruction and materials, Advanced Placement and
other college-level courses, and a variety of learning experiences that
were previously unavailable or unaffordable in many isolated geographic
areas.
Both here in the U.S. and across the globe, students are
using technology to obtain extra support during and after school from
recorded videos and online exercises available through web-based
resources, as well as from peers and personal tutors provided through
online networks.
Tens of thousands of students are enrolling in virtual
schools and online courses. The flexibility of virtual schools and
online courses can benefit all students, but it particularly helps
students in unique circumstances like those who are chronically ill, or
behind in their credits. Florida Virtual Schools, the only school
system in America that gets paid only when the students learn, is
serving almost 200,000 students.
The Department of Defense Education Activity's Virtual
High School allows military-connected students around the world to
enroll in courses that would otherwise not be offered in their school.
In select instances, students in a remote area are joining live classes
offered in larger high schools via video-conference. A one-to-one
student-to-device ratio in pilot schools is geared toward easing
transition and increasing access for military-connected students.
Federal civil rights law requires that all educational
programs offer equal access to students with disabilities, and numerous
new technologies especially target and benefit such students, giving
accessibility and universal design new meaning for thousands of
students.
All of these innovations, and these are just a few of the examples,
are providing opportunities to learn and excel that were often out of
reach for millions of students before technology began leveling the
playing field. Creating unprecedented equity and access to education
alone will make investing in digital infrastructure and learning tools
worthwhile; but there are many other benefits.
Transforming Teaching and Learning
The second core shift that technology will accelerate is a
fundamental transformation of teaching and learning--which in many
respects has been remarkably static for much of the last century. At
the most basic level, open, free, and proprietary digital content can
be kept up-to-date, and revised and improved at any time. It can
replace traditional textbooks, lowering costs and eliminating the back-
breaking backpack. It already has moved beyond digitized books to
create new media with linked or embedded dictionaries, encyclopedias,
assessments and videos, and simulations to give students multiple ways
and chances to understand and master content.
We should not underestimate the impact of even seemingly simple
innovations. How many students have missed a key concept because the
class moved on before they understood, or because the text was too
difficult or because they didn't carry home their heavy books that day?
How many times has the fear of being embarrassed prevented a student
from asking the teacher to explain a concept for the second, let alone
the third or fourth time? These issues are real. They impact learning.
And new technology-enabled tools and resources hold the potential to
ensure that children do not fall behind in the most basic ways.
But, as the record of many sectors of the economy shows, real
transformation does not come from replicating old processes using new
technology. Real innovation emerges when technology is leveraged to
change and improve products or processes in ways that were impossible
or impractical without the technology. I could spend many hours on this
topic alone, but let me focus on a few obvious examples of how this
applies in teaching, learning, assessment, and research and
development.
More than three decades ago, Benjamin Bloom demonstrated what he
dubbed the ``two sigma problem''--sigma meaning standard deviation.
Bloom showed that a student in a given subject, learning through 1:1
tutoring, outperformed students in a traditional classroom by two
standard deviations--meaning a student in the 50th percentile would
instead be in the 98th percentile. To put this into context, if the
U.S. performance improved by just one standard deviation on
international assessments, we would be the highest performing nation in
the world, and our students performing in the lowest 10 percent would
be performing at the level of our current top-quartile students. There
is no disputing these findings or the magnitude of their implications,
yet until now we have been unable to close the gap between the
traditional classroom and the individualized instruction that might
solve the ``two-sigma problem.'' Our challenge is to find a way to
affordably provide each child this opportunity.
Every day, teachers go into classrooms of anywhere from 15 to 60
students and struggle to match each student with the content,
instructional approach, and supports to ensure each student's personal
engagement and success. The average secondary school teacher will try
to tailor instruction for more than 150 students a day, knowing that
each student has a task complicated not only by different levels of
preparation and interest each student brings to school, but also by
different language and cultural backgrounds and social contexts. In far
too many classrooms, we are asking our teachers to meet these demanding
goals with little more than an outdated textbook, some colored markers
and whatever creativity they can conjure to make the best use of the
few hours of the day their students are in front of them. Given these
challenges, it is easy to see just how extraordinary our most effective
teachers are; and how important it is that we equip all our teachers
with the tools to enable them to teach all their students effectively.
Technology holds the legitimate potential, perhaps for the first
time, to affordably personalize American education--on a national
scale. It enables us to put the right information, tools, and resources
in a teacher's hands, so that she can meet a student's needs and pique
her interests. However, just as important, technology can enable
students to progress through material at their own pace, identify, and
explore their passions, and take extra time and access extra support
when they need it. In short, new advances in education technology can
enable students to take ownership of their own learning, while also
enhancing a teacher's capacity to be a facilitator and mentor for such
empowered students. What is inspiring is that there are classrooms
throughout our country where both students and teachers are using
technology to accomplish all of these things.
From flipped classrooms, where online instruction is delivered out
of class so teachers can help students with ``homework'' during class,
to blended schools that combine face-to-face teaching methods with
computer-based methods, to thoughtful implementations of project-based
learning, teachers, schools, and systems are using technology to
rethink traditional roles and to personalize teaching and learning.
They are using data to better target student needs and access
educational content--enabling students to learn at their own pace and
in the ways that suit them best. Teachers are using games to teach
collaboration and complex problem-solving skills to deepen learning for
all students.
To cite one example, teachers in the Mooresville Graded School
District in North Carolina--which provides a laptop for every 4th
through 12th grade student using primarily digital curricular
materials--use technology as a catalyst to make learning more
interesting, build better relationships among students, teachers and
parents, and ultimately improve student and school performance on
almost every metric. The district--one of the lowest funded districts
in the state--has become the second highest performing district in the
state, with graduation rates over 90 percent and millions of dollars
per year in new college scholarships. And they accelerated achievement
and attainment while sustaining a 10 percent reduction in state
funding. Veteran Mooresville teachers talk about how their initial
skepticism turned into enthusiasm and how now they ``can't imagine
going back.''
Meanwhile, millions of teachers and students have begun using
technology-based platforms to support their daily learning lives.
Through such platforms, teachers have access to a constant network of
support from other teachers in their local community and across the
country. Students connect with their teacher, fellow students, and
their work, with a tool that they find as well-designed and compelling
as Facebook but that actually helps them be productive and achieve.
Using such tools, with their associated opportunities for social
networking and peer- or group-learning, also helps students engage in
deeper learning and further develop 21st century skills such as problem
solving, critical thinking, and communication that are critical to
success.
Hundreds of thousands of students with visual impairments and
significant reading disabilities have been provided access to
instructional materials in accessible formats available for download to
computers, tablets, or mobile devices. These innovative products and
processes have resulted in more timely delivery of educational
materials and increased ease of use and access.
Accelerating Research and Development in Education
Third, I want to talk briefly about how technology can accelerate
research and development in education. Both in early learning and
higher education, the evidence of the potential of technology-enabled
education is mounting.
A quasi-experimental study documented that young children using
digital numeracy games in Head Start centers demonstrated significantly
greater learning gains than children who did not have the same access.
Numerous studies of post-secondary course redesigns leveraging
technology have documented that students not only achieved at
significantly higher levels of persistence and performance than the
control groups, but did so in about half the class time. One particular
experiment conducted by Nobel laureate Carl Wieman that studied
multiple professors using a new course redesign found that the most
significant performance gains were made by the instructor that
historically had the lowest student performance. The technology-driven
redesign brought that professor up into the range of all other
professors.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the military
has utilized the learning sciences and technology to produce truly
remarkable learning gains in the area of Information Technology career
and technical education--enabling new recruits, after just 16 weeks of
training, to successfully compete with experts with seven to ten years
of experience in solving highly complex technical problems such as
diagnosing and debugging an enterprise network. These results are
preliminary, but they raise profound questions about the conventional
wisdom on teaching, learning, and the capacity to acquire technical
skills.
These are all wonderful examples of the potential of the learning
sciences and technology to transform education. However, many of you
may recall hearing before that this transformation was imminent, only
to be disappointed when it failed to come to fruition. So the obvious
question is: why will it be different this time?
Leading investors and entrepreneurs say that innovation happens at
scale in healthy ecosystems. The good news is that the macro forces
underlying the education technology ecosystem are all moving in the
right direction. Unlike the situation even five years ago, conditions
are ripe for science and technology to produce dramatic gains in
opportunity, productivity, and student outcomes. Specifically, the
convergence of at least seven trends supports rapid technological
transformation in education: (1) ever more powerful and lower cost
devices, such as tablets, netbooks, and laptops; (2) high-quality
digital content in courses, videos, simulations, and e-books; (3) cloud
computing and broadband are putting powerful applications and rich
content on almost any device at any time, without the need for local
training or technical support; (4) big data collection and analysis to
improve the speed and precision of decision-making and help identify
what works; (5) increasing comfort across all age groups with using
technology; (6) accelerating breakthroughs in neuro, cognitive and
behavioral science; and (7) significant pressure to improve the cost
effectiveness of public dollars.
The bad news is that it is well-documented that significant gaps
remain in the U.S. system for education technology, and historic
challenges persist, although there are opportunities to make smarter,
more strategic uses of education technology. A number of factors
combine to form a difficult market, causing entrepreneurs and investors
to either stay away or treat the education sector as a hobby or
charitable endeavor, leaving the incumbent providers with little
competition or incentive to improve. For example:
The Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program has
successfully increased internet connectivity to nearly 100 percent of
schools from less than 10 percent when the program was created.
However, non-Federal organizations have estimated that few schools have
the bandwidth to support the applications and uses of today, and fewer
still have the devices to allow teachers and students to significantly
change the ways in which they work. Achieving a critical mass is vital
to transforming any school or system which will not happen without
further investment.
Technology markets require scale, as noted recently by Jim
Coulter, the founder of TPG Capital and the co-Chair of the LEAD
(Learning Education by Advancing Digital) Commission. The education
technology market provides neither the easy access of a large consumer
market nor the efficiency of a large institutional market. Complex and
bureaucratic purchasing processes make K-12 education difficult to
navigate by any but the most experienced providers with the largest
sales forces. Further, lack of information and understanding about
which tools actually improve student achievement makes purchasing
decisions and product differentiation based on performance and quality
extremely difficult. But there are ways to address these shortcomings.
Building on the examples of Maine and Pennsylvania, whole states or
consortia of states can organize to aggregate purchasing power, lower
prices, and demand different and better products. And various non-
profit and for-profit providers are attempting to develop user-friendly
interfaces to become a trusted source for those making decisions about
which educational resources to purchase or use.
Longstanding skepticism of technology in education,
combined with inadequate training and support, has also thwarted the
widespread adoption and use of education technology. This challenge has
been exacerbated by products that were poorly designed, too many of
which have been difficult to use and produce dubious results, or
products that have been inaccessible to students with disabilities. As
a result, we must focus our efforts on providing evaluated, proven
tools in which teachers have confidence, and think comprehensively
about how to prepare teachers around the country to integrate these
technologies into the classroom.
Finally, underfunded and unfocused Research and
Development (R&D) in this area has limited advancements and, as a
result, precluded the kind of leadership evident in other sectors.
All levels of government chronically under-invest in
education R&D--high-growth industries invest 10-20 percent of sales
revenues in R&D; many mature industries invest 2-3 percent. Only 0.2
percent of national K-12 spending is devoted to R&D.
The U.S. Department of Education provides no exception to
that general trend of under-investment in education R&D. The trajectory
of educational innovation would be accelerated exponentially by
increasing our investment in the science of learning and learning
technology R&D.
Going forward, while the public sector invests in model
schools or systems, the private sector, both philanthropic and for-
profit, can invest in classroom-level innovations that actually work
for students and teachers.
These obstacles are substantial but they can be overcome if we have
the will to win the global race for economic and educational
competitiveness. We have every motivation to do so. Our students and
our country deserve no less. Further, opportunities abound to build on
progress already in motion. For example, the Department of Education
has used competitive grant funding through the Investing in Innovation
(i3) Fund and the Race to the Top-District competition to support
innovative strategies, interventions, and tools centered on technology.
And, the Department of Defense Education Activity has developed a
professional learning framework to be introduced in school year 2013-
14, which focuses on creating student-centered, technology infused 21st
Century classrooms and schools.
Given the advantages of access and equity, the urgent need to
transform teaching and learning for all of our nation's students, and
the opportunity to better align and invest in R&D, there is every
reason to move ahead rapidly. I will briefly cite three reasons:
1. First, national competitiveness--Countries that are already
outperforming us educationally and economically are also ahead of us in
the transition to technology-supported learning. Countries such as
Singapore and South Korea have recognized that investing in technology
enables them to move up faster to higher levels of performance in
workforce development, including teaching their students to be creative
and innovative, traditionally America's hallmarks. Many of these
countries have already made national commitments to realizing their
visions.
2. Second, we want to retain international leadership in education
technology. The rest of the world has realized that the key to long-
term economic success is human capital development. Yet many countries
cannot build enough schools or train enough teachers to meet the new
demand. To address this challenge they are turning to technology.
Today, education is a $5.7 trillion market and growing. The U.S. is
primed to export learning technology, but other countries are not
standing still. There will be a new equivalent of Google or Microsoft
to lead the global learning technology market. I want it to be a U.S.
company.
3. Finally, and most important, the educational needs of our
children are unmet. We have known for the better part of three decades
that we have been cheating our nation's future--that our students are
capable of much more than we are enabling them to do. The delivery of
education must be more exciting and relevant to reflect the best of
what school can be. We owe our children and we owe our nation the best
possible education, and it is in our power to provide it.
Like so many other times in our history as a nation, we are
confronted with the question: what are we willing to do to achieve our
goals? Our historic answer has been ``whatever it takes.'' It is time
to give that answer once again.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Shelton.
We will now recognize committee members for 5 minutes of
questioning each, starting with Chairman Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my thanks
to the witnesses for being here. It is really, really exciting
testimony. Really exciting stuff. I am pretty sure I want to be
a Rocketeer today. Just terrific, very, very exciting.
I want to get to a couple questions here in a second, but I
was sitting here thinking about how this innovation is
unfolding, and how each of you, in your different capacities,
have grabbed it, and the progress that is being made. And it
reminded me of many, many years ago, decades ago, a long time
ago, when I was in the Marine Corps.
And I was at Marine headquarters. And I remember there was
a process that was going on, a procurement process to figure
out what computers and operating systems the Marines ought to
get for their offices around the world.
And while they wrestled with this and did briefing papers
and sent it up and had it reviewed and sent it back, and then
rethought it and then repriced it, the offices in the Marine
headquarters itself were already in their second generation of
computers, because the innovation was moving so fast.
So people figured out a way to just get what they needed.
They used operations and maintenance funds, instead of
procurement, went out and bought it. Now that resulted in a
fair amount of confusion because some people wanted one
operating system and some another. But the point is, is that we
were frozen in a paradigm and a model and couldn't figure out
how to break out of it.
And we here on this dais and in the government department,
we get kind of frozen, too, as we struggle through. And you are
out there changing things, closing gaps, making things happen.
So it is very, very exciting to hear from you.
And I know there is a lot of bipartisan interest here in
what you are doing. We don't always have bipartisan agreement,
you would be shocked to hear, on things. But there is a lot of
agreement that you are doing some really fantastic stuff.
And Mr. Bailey, your testimony, you talked about policy
barriers, things that are getting in the way. It could be an
antiquated system. It could be old Marines, whatever. But there
is something out there.
And some of those things is the model we use now that
checks seat time instead of actual learning and things, and we
need to grapple with those, the department does and so forth.
But some of them you mentioned, enrollment caps and limits on
expansion of online options.
That seems to be a different kind of barrier. Who puts
those barriers in place? And how are some people getting around
them?
Mr. Bailey. That is a great question. I would say these
barriers come in sort of two different forms. There are
unintentional barriers of just sort of regulations that have
been around that assumed a certain model of schooling, that now
you have new technology models and new models of education,
like Rocketship, Florida Virtual, other online models, that are
starting to challenge that.
And you think about it, when a lot of our regulations and
laws were put in place, they never dreamt of a time when a
student in Washington, D.C., could be taught by a teacher from
Florida through a charter school model that originated in
California.
And that confounds all sorts of different--you know, where
does that teacher need to be certified? What types of
requirements, regulations do they need to be under? What
jurisdiction?
There are just sort of questions there that states I think
are wrestling with.
The second type of regulations, the caps and others that
you mentioned, are really sort of coming out as a way of trying
to constrain some of this innovation, because I think people
get nervous about quality. And the caps are just a very poor
substitute for having good quality metrics and measures and
evaluations in place to make sure that, you know, good
providers and good options are scaled, and ones that just
aren't delivering results for kids are sort of pushed back.
Those concerns come from all sorts of different angles,
from schools worried about losing funds, from just the
traditional model being threatened by some new innovations. And
change is scary for some people.
And so that manifests itself in enrollment caps, in the
number of online schools that can be offered in the state. That
is a current regulation in Massachusetts.
There have even been very strange caps and requirements,
where some students were only limited to online options that
were offered within their district, which would be sort of
telling someone, like, you can shop online at Amazon if you
lived in Seattle. It just sort of breaks down and holds back
the shear opportunity to have what Jim was just talking about,
bringing in some of the best and brightest teachers and experts
from around the world, but also other resources and courses
from around the world.
Mr. Kline. Thank you very much. I see my light is getting
ready to turn red.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize Ranking Member Miller for 5 minutes. Excuse
me. That is right, my bad.
Mrs. McCarthy for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, you know, reading your testimony and then
hearing what you just said, you mentioned that you were able to
pay your teachers even more money than I guess the local
teachers are getting. You also mentioned the high scores that
your students are achieving, which I recommend, which I am very
proud about hearing that.
And blending the learning environment requires attention to
detail and flexibility. We understand that now. And it seems as
though you are dedicated to these principles, which I am very
glad to hear.
You mention that basic skills are honed in with tutors and
online learning, while higher order skills are still reserved
for traditional teacher/student interaction. And I agree with
that.
I was wondering how--and one more question in there, how do
you deal with students with disabilities? I have learning
disabilities. And when I went to Silicon Valley years ago, I
said why aren't you doing more not only for adults, like we
carry that for the rest of our life, but for the students that
are in there that learn differently?
How do you deal with that? And how do you come up with the
model that you came up with?
Mr. Smith. That is a great question. So we do have special
education students. We actually call it at Rocketship ISD, or
integrated service delivery. So we want to really make sure
that those students are not identified as special ed, but
rather a part of the core group.
So all of our students are mainstream, meaning they
participate in the general classroom. But this is an area where
online learning has really been helpful to us, not only in the
content that we can offer, because there is specialized
content. So we use some different online programs for students
depending on their needs, especially for our ISD population.
And then also the ability for the data--when I was talking
about the ability of technology is not necessarily the silver
bullet, but it gives the teachers the ability and the tools to
really identify what a kid needs.
And so the data we get from the online programs, especially
for our special ed students, really helps the teachers target
and then customize their plans for the next 8 weeks.
And in addition, a lot of our students have--some have one-
to-one aides, or we have other special education teachers as
well.
Mrs. McCarthy. One of the things that I wanted to follow up
with, the teachers, when you hired the teachers, did they
already have a high understanding of computer and online
teaching? Because I am wondering if our universities are even
teaching that. I haven't seen too much of that.
So is it an intense course that you offer to the teachers?
Or do they have to be a certain aptitude, you know, towards
computers and online teaching? Explain that to me.
Mr. Smith. So most of our teachers are really open to
technology. I think that is kind of the world we live in now.
Everybody is very familiar with it. I think the bigger need
that we have with our teachers is less about training and
understanding on actual technology. It is more on data.
So we have separate online programs that provide
personalized lessons to students. It is really then taking that
data from the programs and understanding what the students have
mastered, and then as the teacher, what are your next steps and
what are you going to do in terms of modifying your
instruction, your groupings and your lesson plan.
So that is a real key skill that we have to develop for our
school leaders and teachers.
Mrs. McCarthy. And one follow-up question, you said that
basically you look at the students every 8 weeks.
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Mrs. McCarthy. And you were a regular school teacher at one
time. Tell me the comparison, when you go in and test the
students at 8 weeks, and information you get. I am a data
person. I never understand why we can't get the data even
faster.
And going back to the school models that we are under right
now, how long would you have to reevaluate students you had
that did not get online learning?
Mr. Smith. Yes, just to even clarify a bit more, we
actually now are getting to the place where we are getting
daily or weekly data. So we are giving students assessments
online through some of the content, where we can actually in
real time--so we can teach a lesson, see if a student has
mastered it or what groups of students haven't. And the next
day or even in the next part of the classroom, actually modify
groupings and modify instruction.
So we have gotten down to that level. And we are doing that
right now.
When I was a regular, traditional public school teacher,
which was about--it was about 7 years ago, typically, we would
assess two, maybe three times a year. But it wasn't as
integrated into our schedule.
Mrs. McCarthy. Now you say that you work in some of the
poorest schools in certain districts. Do they go home with,
like, a computer or an iPad or anything like that? And let's
face it, a lot of the parents might not have the technology
that they can use to be with their child as they are learning.
How do you address that?
Mr. Smith. Yes, you nailed it. It is a large challenge for
us. So connectivity in low income neighborhoods is a real
challenge. A lot of the families don't have wifi or wireless
access.
And then the costs, so in California I think it is 49th in
terms of funding. So buying tablets and those sorts of things
for our kids really isn't an option.
So what we have done is we have computer access and wifi at
our schools. So we have an extended day. And we also offer an
after school or before school program. So we have the kids come
in and we are starting to send home online homework.
So that is what we have started to do, but the connectivity
is a real challenge, and then the cost of the devices, we are
still waiting for those to come down.
But our hope is in about 2 to 3 years, every student would
have a device and connectivity where they could go home and
access the content at home as well.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
Dr. Roe is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roe. Okay. I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
First, I learned something--first of all, Happy Valentine's
Day. Obviously some of our members got the memo and dressed
appropriately.
Secondly, I learned today that a Marine could actually use
a computer. That was pretty interesting, from the chairman.
The other that I think technology can do is it can take off
the 50 pound pack that my 9 year old grandchild has to walk
around with. And I almost couldn't pick up her pack the other
day when we picked her up from school.
I want to start, Mr. Shelton. You are very aware in
Tennessee--and Mr. Bailey, I will say, we didn't get it all
wrong all those years before. We did get to the Moon with a
slide rule. We did invent Penicillin and a bunch of other
things. So we didn't get it all wrong, all that 100 years.
But it does need to be changed. There is no question. And
in Tennessee, we have a gentleman who lives in Greenville,
Tennessee, Scott Niswonger, who personally took it upon himself
to improve the educational outcomes of people in rural east
Tennessee and the mountains.
And this man funded himself a distance learning program.
And now the Department of Education, through an i3 grant--I
think it is $18 million dollars. We have been able to expand
that.
And I have absolutely seen the benefits of that. There is
no question.
And I want to say something else to Mr. Miller. George--
then President Bush and I think Speaker Boehner recognized that
low income children--it was not acceptable to say that these
children couldn't achieve what other kids could.
So thank you, George. It hasn't worked out exactly right,
but the concept is correct.
And I think, Mr. Smith, you have proven that, that we
shouldn't expect any less. There are some other hurdles and
challenges. And I am going to ask you about those in a minute.
But I think you have proven that it can happen.
And thank you for that leadership torch and putting that
concept out there.
What we have done in rural east Tennessee, if you are in a
small rural high school--one of our high schools has 52
students. Well, you can take Chinese in there. Some of the
people where we are think we speak Chinese, from where I am.
But anyway, you can take French, German, calculus,
whatever. I visualized a class where the biology class was
actually talking to a diver in the Great Barrier Reef while
they were under water; unbelievable things.
And we have seen obviously the dual enrollment with college
level classes, with college being so expensive. So this model
that I have seen in east Tennessee has worked amazingly well.
But it started with a vision of a private individual, just
like Mr. Smith, you did.
And I guess the question I have for you is, how do you pay
your teachers 30 percent more? And how do you get the best
teachers?
That is a challenge we all have. I was the mayor of the
largest city in my district. And that is a challenge for us.
Mr. Smith. Yes, it is a challenge for us to. We are always
looking for great teachers. So if you know some, send them to
California.
We have a recruitment team. So we aggressively recruit
teachers. And we also partner with Teach for America. So we
have a strong partnership there as well.
And so that has been really helpful in us finding the
talent.
And then your first question, again?
Mr. Roe. How do you pay? How do you----
Mr. Smith. Oh, the compensation?
Mr. Roe. Yes. How do you pay those?
Mr. Smith. So what we have been able to do is we have found
that we can change the ratio of students. So we can actually
serve more students with fewer teachers if we really leverage
technology.
And so that is what we have found, is that through
technology, we can individualize or personalize the learning,
which allows us to serve more students.
Mr. Roe. One of the things I found in the personalized
learning I have seen is that instead of--like we have a TCAP
scores, Tennessee Achievement Scores. And instead of kids
getting all in a twit and teachers getting all in a twit when
May comes, and nobody does anything--we are teaching all that
stuff.
You are able to evaluate a child almost weekly. And they
don't even really know they are being evaluated, which I think
is much more accurate than a kid sweating a test and the
teacher worried about that, and they are going to get evaluated
am I a good teacher or a bad teacher based on what this outcome
is.
And I wonder if you had the same experience, that kids--I
think they do respond to it.
Mr. Smith. Yes, absolutely. And not only that, I think, to
your point, it really empowers our teachers, because they know
what a student is struggling with and then they can figure out
how to game plan towards that. And so the student is
successful. And that makes every teacher feel great.
Mr. Roe. I think the technology now--and the textbook is
horrendously expensive. And obviously five or six textbooks is
going to cost more than an iPad or any device. I mean, you can
get them for $150 now.
And I wouldn't know why we couldn't transition to that for
these kids, and get rid of textbooks. I think they are on the
way out.
I don't know whether you all do, but I certainly do.
Mr. Shelton----
Mr. Smith. I hope so. We could save some money.
Mr. Roe. Any comments you would have about the northeast
Tennessee experience?
Mr. Shelton. Sure. One, it is a great example of where we
have got all these guys across the country, these great
examples that wind up being small. And what we have to figure
out is how we take them to scale.
And so his initial work set a stage for doing something
tremendous. And the results have been phenomenal to date, 39
percent increase in the kids taking college level courses,
expansion in the foreign languages.
But now it has actually been evaluated and is something
that can be expanded across the country. We just need to do
more of that kind of work.
Mr. Roe. One last comment.
Chairman Rokita. I am sorry. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Roe. Yes. And it is the last comment. It is the problem
in medicine and education, what has held us up, it is the way
we have always done it.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, doctor.
And now Ranking Member Miller for 5 minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Mrs. McCarthy for putting together this hearing. I think
this is probably one of the most valuable hearings we have had
in a long time.
I have always been all about equity. That is why I threw my
cards in with President Bush and John Boehner--Speaker Boehner
now--on No Child Left Behind. And I think that the testimony
here this morning suggests this is the best opportunity to
provide that equity that we have seen as a nation in our
history for these children.
And it is not just providing that equity. It is also their
ability to take advantage of it. And that is what is really
exciting.
Mr. Bailey, you have laid out some of the barriers to
people trying to hold back the future.
Mr. Smith, I have been watching you from the East Bay for a
long time. And your success and the excitement is amazing.
And the Florida Virtual School, you know, you are
addressing some of the issues of scale.
And Mr. Smith, I am watching you on scale, because others
have gone where you are now treading. And we will see. And I
say that as a cheerleader, not as being negative.
But Mr. Shelton, this leads me to you. I have spent a lot
of time in my many years on this committee, 38, 39 years on
this committee, talking to DARPA from time to time about what
they could do to help us in education.
And before it really was laborious. And it was really a
problem for them, sort of where to make the insertion to think
about how you direct this. And they always outlined some very
simplistic things that they could do that would be helpful.
But today, this is a very different world in terms of how
we think about research. We now have data that we have never
had before. You know, we have big data, whatever the hell they
are talking about now--in the rest of the world. But it seems
to me that, for all the reasons maybe Mr. Bailey laid out, our
research within the department, at the federal level in
conjunction with the private sector and others, has to be much
more nimble than we have been in the past. We have got to be
able to sort of, you know--what is that term when they are
looking for terrorists who go down a rat hole or something?
You know, you have got to go where the leads take you. And
you have to have the flexibility to go there, and also the
flexibility to say, this isn't working out, let us look over
here.
Because here you have it all sort of in front of you. You
have all the entrpreneurism. You have people trying to ramp it
to scale and addressing and integrating students who before
were simply left out. There are a lot of ways to do that. But
they were being left out.
I have a school in my district that is named after my
father for the most profoundly disabled students in our area.
And yet I am watching technology creep up on these kids and
getting them ready to go into mainstream schools, and they
would have never gone there 3 years ago.
And so I am asking you. I am trying to think about how we
take education research. I have been working on legislation,
doing it on a bipartisan, thinking about how you create sort of
an ARPA-Ed or however--you know, we have ARPA Energy, whatever
this would be labeled. But that kind of concept that you also
have the right to fail in looking at these promising
technologies or promising avenues for schools.
Because the DARPA has every absolute right to fail and they
move on. They are not punished. They are given more money to
fail, because we know that that is sort of what advancement is.
Mr. Shelton. So, thanks for the opportunity. I mean, the
great thing about DARPA is they do fail, but they also succeed.
And when they do, they produce things like the Internet and
GPS, the Stealth Fighter, the Drone, things that change the
world forever.
And so the opportunity that we have--you know, and the
Department of Defense still spends another $70 billion on
traditional R&D, because that part is necessary as well.
DARPA actually gives us a good example of what is possible
when you do this kind of directed development, particularly in
education and training. And so I will just do it quickly
through a story.
They partnered with the Navy because the Navy was having a
problem finding I.T. specialists that could actually maintain
their ships. The good ones that they had for 3 to 5 years were
too good, and they would get attracted into the private market
because they would make three times as much money. And the new
recruits were not actually useful to them when they came out of
training.
And the Navy went to the folks at DARPA. And the folks at
DARPA simply said, well, this is easy. You just have to be able
to get your kids that come out of the 16 week training to be as
good as your 5 to 7 year experts.
A number of years later, they have now done it. And this is
documented by the Institute for Defense Analysis. They have
taken cohort after cohort after cohort now of new recruits and,
in 16 weeks, had them be able to compete successfully on
knowledge tests, on performance tasks and out on ships, where
they are competing well with folks that have 17 years of
experience.
That is the kind of breakthrough that is possibly, that
questions everything that we think we know about teaching,
learning and intellectual potential. And that is the kind of
work we should be doing every day in education. We can get
those kind of breakthroughs.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up with you
on this. And might I ask that--and staff can look it over, but
I would like to ask permission to insert into the record the
report ``Raising the Bar: How Education Innovation Can Improve
Student Achievement,'' by the Alliance for Excellent Education?
[The information follows:]
------
Chairman Rokita. Without objection, gentleman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. And gentleman's time has expired.
We will now hear from Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the panel for bringing your experiences in
innovation and technology, because that is so important to the
future, certainly to education. But it benefits all areas.
And Mr. Smith, let me say, as a recovering school board
member, I had that same question Dr. Roe had, in terms of how
you are able to consistently pay 30 percent more. Thanks for
answering that question. That was helpful for me to understand
that.
You know, one of the things I wanted to look at is, you
know, right now, today, despite we have record sustained
unemployment and under employment, but we still have, as I go
around, manufacturers, businesses and industries that have
these job openings.
And these are good paying jobs. These are jobs that, with
the right kind of training, you can come out of a secondary
program, some young people can step into. And so obviously I
think there is a lot out there for business, industry,
manufacturing. Even service industry have workforce needs.
And I happen to believe, actually, that applied education
can be some of the most effective education, when I look at
kids that are going through career and technical education
programs.
But my question--and I will open it up to the panel--is
what role is the private sector playing--business, industry,
manufacturer, service industry--in supporting state and local
school districts to expand their digital and online earnings?
And I don't just mean access to equipment, technology, capital,
but also to content, to, in terms of, I think, for me, I just
see some exciting opportunities for kind of applied learning.
So why don't we start and we will just----
Mr. Shelton. Sure. So actually you do see some innovative
partnerships taking place around the country between employers
and businesses, trying to build the pipeline, starting as early
as high school, through either an industry certification or
through the college system, directly into their most needed
professions. There just aren't enough of them.
And they are not producing the resources that allow that to
happen, the kind of instructional resources, the kind of
experiential opportunities that people need to have so they can
be scaled.
So the big step for us is to figure out how do we actually
make it easier for businesses to get in this work, and not have
to do the things that aren't their core business, make it easy
for them to create the opportunity and then have people help
them flesh it out into a real educational experience.
And then how do you build that into a kind like the kind of
platforms that we have been talking about that can take it to
scale?
Ms. Sagues. That is really a great question. One of the
things we are doing in Florida is we are really ramping up our
industry certification programs, to try to get kids, you know,
certified beginning in middle school and then building upon
that, as they go through high school.
So we are working very hard to develop and integrate more
courses that would take students to those industry
certifications. And we have got, you know, great support at
both the legislative level and at the private sector level to
be able to do that.
So it is coming.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes. In San Jose, we have something called SJ-
2020, which is a measure by the city to eliminate the
achievement gap by 2020. And so businesses in San Jose and
Silicon Valley have really invested and stepped up in that
regard.
And then I would also say, we have also seen, at least in
Silicon Valley, a lot of entrepreneurs. So after their
technology entrepreneurship, are actually engaging in ed-tech.
So a couple people--Reed Hastings, founder of Netflix, he
actually bought a company, Dream Box, which has been really
helpful in kind of showing what is possible for online content,
especially in the elementary space.
And then my co-founder, John Danner, has background in
technology. He is actually going and starting an ed-tech
company. So we are seeing that more and more. I think that is
going to be the future.
Mr. Bailey. Just to agree, but two other examples. I think
you are seeing this a lot with technology certificates,
especially with Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, that are working with
schools as a way of offering these students a chance to engage
in learning the skills and competencies outlined by these
certificates and credentials.
But it is also a way of hooking them and helping them
understand how math, science and the other subjects that, you
know, they are expected to know in school, how that is applied.
So the applied learning I think is crucial. It keeps them
engaged, but also helps them bring them up to college and
career ready.
Second, it is just to build on what Preston said, but we
are seeing a wave of entrepreneurs and innovators coming out of
Silicon Valley. Folks that gave us Google and Amazon and
services that we all use every single day are now turning their
sights and helping to problem solve challenges that teachers
are facing, students are facing, and schools are facing.
So I think that also ties a little bit into what Jim and
Congressman Miller were talking, too, about the R&D. But there
is a flood of innovation coming out from people that want to
solve and tackle education challenges. And it is great. We
should be welcoming that and encouraging that.
Mr. Thompson. I will just close with a quick assumption. I
know it is not safe to make any kind of assumptions. But, you
know, we are talking about computers and iPads. I have to
wonder whether the future of accessing this are, you know, kids
with smartphones, you know, which--and not all children have
access to that. I recognize that.
But those who do and as more have them, that is something
they carry with them all the time. And they are very good at
using them.
So thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us.
Mr. Shelton, I want to follow up on the gentleman from
California, our ranking member's question about R&D. I assume
some of this stuff that is out there is effective and some is
not effective. What is the Department of Education doing to
make sure that local school boards get the right stuff?
Mr. Shelton. Yes. I mean, one of the most important things
overall that we have tried to do is to actually set a frame for
saying, look, we have to be in the business of getting what
works in the hands of our teachers and students, and that we
need to get better at building an infrastructure that allows us
to figure those things out more quickly and make it more
transparent to the folks who are making decisions, be they
school boards, be they superintendents, be they teachers.
And so we have done two things. One is to set up a policy
framework and a grant program structure that allows for that to
happen. That is the basic outlines of the i3 program.
But the second thing is to work with IES to very
specifically build out their infrastructure to better populate
the What Works Clearinghouse.
And then the third is to make these resources available to
folks on the outside, and train them how to do the kinds of
evaluations that you need to figure out how things are working.
I want to end on this point by saying, the good news for us
in the space of learning technology is that the technology
itself and the data that is the natural exhaust of doing this
work creates unprecedented opportunities for evaluating them
that we haven't had before. We can figure out much more quickly
what works, what doesn't work, and what works in comparison to
what, and what works for whom and in what context.
All of those are questions that we had to guess at before
or went by ideology. We can now answer them empirically.
Mr. Scott. And you have that information available?
Mr. Shelton. It is not available. These are the things that
are being developed as people introduce products to the field
and as people evaluate them and they evaluate themselves.
Mr. Scott. Now how much of this software is proprietary and
how much of it is open source?
Mr. Shelton. Right now, the market is still emerging. There
is a good amount of open and free content that is available.
There is a significant amount--obviously all of the existing
publishers still have offerings that are somewhat online or
some blended in some technology. And there are the
entrepreneurs that we talked about.
I couldn't give you exact percentages. But it is still
playing out.
Mr. Scott. And is this way of teaching taught in colleges
as we train our teachers? Or do teachers need professional
development to catch up?
Mr. Shelton. Teachers need professional development to
catch up. That is new teachers and that is existing teachers.
Just as doctors when the new technology comes out, when the MRI
was introduced, when the electronic health records were
introduced, had to figure out how to use those tools, our
teachers need to be trained to use those tools that they are
introduced as well.
And once they are trained well, and frankly when the
products are well designed, they find them empowering and they
embrace them. And it allows them to do things they were never
able to do before.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Sagues, your school is totally online?
Ms. Sagues. Yes, sir. It is.
Mr. Scott. Can you comment on whether or not there is a
loss in socialization amongst your students?
Ms. Sagues. That is a wonderful question. And I would be
happy to address it. We have a lot of different ways for
students to interact, both online and then also in a face-to-
face environment. So our school has a whole bunch of clubs, a
lot of clubs that you would find in a traditional school. And
our students will get together, you know, regionally for
various types of field trips and things like that.
But in addition to that, students today are so socially
active outside of the regular school day. For example, we serve
a lot of home school students. And they are very, very active
within their home school organizations.
We also have laws. Laws have been passed in Florida where
any student who is an online student can go back to their
regularly zoned school and participate in all of the sports,
any club. They can go to the prom. They can do all of those
things within their local community as well.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, you have talked about reducing the achievement
gap and alluded to the possibility of an expanded achievement
gap based on access to technology. Do you work with the
community groups like Boys and Girls Clubs and libraries, to
make sure that students do have access to technology?
Mr. Smith. Yes. We partner with local groups. I think that
is a really important avenue.
Mr. Scott. And what else can be done to make sure that all
students have access?
Mr. Smith. Yes, I think a couple things that really gets to
access in terms of price point, so for the device and then also
the wifi connectivity. And as Mr. Bailey referenced, E-Rate, so
I think there is some real potential there to expand that
program or to use it in a way that would increase wireless
access in local communities, especially low income communities.
Mr. Scott. You pay your teachers more. Are you able to hire
better teachers?
Mr. Smith. That is our hope. That is what we are trying to
do. So yes. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired.
We will now hear from Mrs. Roby for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Roby. Well, good morning. I am so excited about this
hearing today. It aligns quite nicely with initiatives that we
are taking in my home state of Alabama. And the State
Department of Education in Alabama just recently recognized
February is our digital learning month.
And so they are celebrating the innovative teaching and
highlighting digital learning. And so thank you for what you
are doing to expand upon that.
And I have to say as a parent, Margaret, my daughter, she
is in second grade. And I opened her backpack the other day and
the fundraising materials had been sent home about raising
funds for the iPads for her school. So it is just exciting to
see how all this is evolving in her little school in Montgomery
County Public Schools, but also throughout the country.
So I am really excited.
Mr. Bailey, you referenced the standard, one size fits all
education doesn't fit today's generation of students. And I
wholeheartedly agree with you. And I think that what I would
like to discuss or hear from you are what policy obstacles and
federal burdens exist at the state level, that prohibit the
expansion of the technologies.
Mr. Bailey. Thanks. It is a great question. And it is a
couple different sort of policies. One is, again, you have a
lot of proxies for quality. So the whole idea of class size
restrictions and making sure that it is only one teacher for
every 25 kids or 30 kids is a way of trying to help get at--it
is a proxy for sort of quality, in many ways, and doesn't fully
sort of recognize what Preston was talking about here in terms
of a lot of these blended learning schools, you can actually
have more students in a class with a teacher, but it doesn't
mean that that teacher is just lecturing to an entirely large
class.
What is usually happening is that the technology is
constantly assessing the students, and then giving some
students individualized activities to pursue on their own with
a computer. Some students are actually not using a computer but
going off and doing small group instruction. And then a whole
other group of students are getting flagged that need more one-
on-one time with teachers.
So again, addressing some of these class size restrictions
are really helpful. Anything that deals with the awarding of
credit seems to be getting in the way of a lot of these new
models, too. And it is because sometimes you have students,
especially in the gifted area, that can pursue materials or
actually progress faster than what their classmates are. But
they are sort of held back because they can't demonstrate, the
end of year exam can't be taken in December or January.
So, you know, what we have is a system that sort of awards
credit based on time, not based on learning. And there is a lot
of states and school districts wanting some freedom from those
regulations to look at ways of awarding credit when the student
can demonstrate that they know the material and progress on to
higher level or send it at a faster pace.
And I am sure Preston and others have a couple ideas.
Mrs. Roby. Well, and that is great, because what I am
getting at is, as we meet towards the reauthorization--you
know, the committee of the whole--for No Child Left Behind, how
can we remove obstacles that exist in the current legislation
that would allow for you to expand. So if anybody else wants to
weigh in specifically about that, please do.
Mr. Shelton. I was going to say, at the federal level,
there is not a lot that happens around the caps and things like
that. It all happens at the state level.
I think one of the things that we need to encourage people
to look at is how to think about new accountability systems.
Because those new accountability systems can actually allow
them to give more freedom. We don't have to wait until
attendance counts and end of year assessments and things like
that to know whether students are in school, whether they are
making progress, whether their activity levels are high,
whether they have mastered anything.
Florida Virtual Schools has a model where they get paid
when the students demonstrate that they have learned. If we
shifted to those kinds of models and encouraged those kind of
models from the federal level, we might see a lot better
accountability, and a lot more freedom for our people to
innovate, because people would feel comfortable that the safety
nets were there.
Mrs. Roby. Great.
And Mr. Smith, real quickly, the yellow light is on. I just
want to focus in a little bit on how do you motivate your
teachers? I know that we touched on this. But you said, as I
was walking in, you were talking about how new things sometimes
scare people. And talk about how you motivate your teachers to
get comfortable with this technology.
And then I heard Mr. Shelton say that you tend to see, once
they get it, they run with it. But, you know, the new can
oftentimes, there can be resistance because it is new.
Mr. Smith. Yes, no, it is a big change management process.
We are actually in the middle of actually more integrating our
instructional online programs into the classroom. So we are in
the middle of this at Rocketship.
So what process we are using is more kind of piloting
things, so starting it small, having teachers come and observe,
having focus groups where they are giving input, and really
kind of gradually getting the experience of it. Before, we
would just kind of go whole hog.
And we have found that that has been really, really pretty
positive, and it helped us gain momentum. But it does take kind
of a gradual incubation, letting them kind of experience it.
And then also I think when they see the power with kids, right,
nothing is a greater joy for a teacher than when you actually
succeed and you see a kid gets it.
So I think with this personalized learning, when they see
they can have such a powerful effect no so many students, and
in the same day you can hit one small group to one-on-one, it
is really powerful. And I think that really captures our
teachers.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. Mr. Polis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Before my time begins, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
inquire if there is going to be time for a second round of
going through our panel?
Chairman Rokita. No, sir.
Mr. Polis. Okay. Then I will begin my time. And I want to
make sure the clock has not begun yet, because I am just
beginning and I am going to need every moment.
So first I want to thank the panel. Thank you. This is a
very exciting way to start off the new session. It is exactly
why I am so honored to be back on the committee. And what a
wonderful subject.
So I want to start. I am going to focus on the federal role
in this. Obviously we are federal legislators.
So I want to start with a question about how important is
ESEA reauthorization, specifically around accountability? How
important is it that we replace I think what we all acknowledge
kind of failed AYP model with an updated model at the federal
level, which presumably would include progress over time and
other indicators?
I would like each of you to answer. And I would like you to
say, if you can, ``very important,'' ``somewhat important,'' or
``not important'' that we replace ESEA's accountabilities
provisions.
Mr. Bailey, ``very important,'' ``somewhat important,'' or
``not important?''
Mr. Bailey. Very important.
Mr. Polis. Okay, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Very important.
Mr. Polis. Ms. Sagues?
Ms. Sagues. Very important.
Mr. Polis. And Mr. Shelton?
Mr. Shelton. Yes.
Mr. Polis. Okay. Thank you. And again, in terms of looking
at the federal role, this is clearly one where we have, I
think, broad acknowledgement that we had a poor accountability
model. Many would say it might be better than no accountability
model. That is a separate discussion.
But we have one that I think policy makers on both sides of
the aisle can replace. We have seen states lead the way under
the waiver process. We have some great information out there.
It really is critical.
I want, you know, based on your input, an answer to that
question, that our committee work on the ESEA reauthorization,
so that we can have a better accountability model.
Now I want to go to Mr. Bailey about specifically some of
the barriers that you identified, limitations, outdated
regulation and finance. So many of these reside at the state
and local level. There is some perhaps of the finance piece
that reside at the federal level. But limitations, outdated
regulations are state and local.
I wanted to ask about your opinion of, at the federal
level, programs like Race to the Top, that help reduce and
encourage states to reduce some of these limitations and
outdated regulations, as well as other things that the federal
government might be able to do to encourage states and
districts to reduce some of those limitations, outdated
regulations that prevent your success.
Mr. Bailey. So I think it is a great question. And I think
some of Race to the Top is a good model, because Race to the
Top created incentives for states to lower barriers,
particularly around charter schools. But what it did not do is
sort of--again, it just focused on charter schools. It left out
all these other sort of new models coming out, with blending
learning, with online learning and virtual schools and so
forth.
So states could eliminate all the barriers to charter
schools. But if they kept the caps on for a virtual school or
an online program, they could still sort of compete. So it is a
chance to, again, sort of capture state attention and drive
some innovation there too.
I think your question around accountability with ESEA is
actually a good example too of the caution of legislating and
giving room for innovation, that, you know, back when No Child
Left Behind was signed into law, you only had two or three
states that could actually calculate growth models. And there
was no flexibility built into the law to allow growth and other
sort of state innovations to be, you know, included in the
accountability systems as technology sort of offered it.
So I think the key for reauthorization is how do you build
in some flexibility, that as technology drives new ability to
do accountability or pay for performance with programs, that
that is allowed to be incorporated.
Mr. Polis. And I want to go to Mr. Smith and ask about the
federal role in his, in the inception and the expansion of your
work, Title V specifically, and how that plays into your start
and how that plays into your expansion.
Mr. Smith. Yes. I am glad you brought that up. It has been
critical. And I think Title V has been critical really to
incubating other kind of entrepreneurs and new ideas in
education. So it is critical.
Mr. Polis. And part of what we do through the All-STAR Act,
which I introduced last session, will do again, as well as the
Charter School Reauthorization that passed the House
overwhelmingly, with a bipartisan majority, is it looked at the
Title V expenditures and said, not only will they help support
this critical role of experimentation, what Mr. Miller referred
to, and trying different things, not being afraid to fail, but
also would allow replication and scaling of successful models.
So would it help you scale and replicate faster if there
were some part of Title V funds that were available for
replication and scaling up proven success?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. It is actually one of the conditions
that we look at when we are looking at different states and
cities that approach us and ask us to come.
Mr. Polis. And let us say that there is a state that has
not received Title V, like Nevada, for instance. Would that
make it less likely you would go to that state?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. If it is missing, we ask local
funders to make up the gap, which is significant.
Mr. Polis. And what do you think of this concept that
perhaps school districts ought to be able to directly do it or
chartered entities? Or there ought to be some set aside at the
federal level for interstate efforts that affect several
states?
Mr. Smith. I think it would be really great exactly for the
reason you just mentioned in Nevada.
Chairman Rokita. Gentleman's time has expired.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask a few
questions. I really appreciate the conversation. I think all
the members did. Thank you very much.
One of the other committees I sit on is the Budget
Committee. And so my ears really perked up when I heard Mr.
Shelton talk about the misdirected investment. He said a 0.2
percent increase in investment in technology. Did I get that
right?
Mr. Shelton. Actually, what I said is relative to other
sectors, we under invest in R&D. We spend about 0.2 percent on
R&D in education technology. That is about one tenth of what
any mature industry spends or any----
Chairman Rokita. Okay. So you were talking industry wide.
You didn't mean the Department of Education budget?
Mr. Shelton. Absolutely not.
Chairman Rokita. Okay. All right, moving right along then.
And do the other three of you have a comment on that, about R&D
in the sector?
Agree, disagree?
Mr. Bailey. Just, I think R&D is coming from all different
angles. Again, you have new entrepreneurs coming in, trying out
new models as nonprofits, as for-profit providers. And just I
think it is creating an ecosystem of R&D.
The federal role definitely has a role with IES and others
and some of their experimental grants. But it is also creating
the space, room for schools and charter schools to try
something, fail. And if it fails, it is okay. Shut it down and
scale the high performing policy.
Chairman Rokita. Do you see a future where there would be
something like what we call three Ps, public/private
partnerships, somewhat what we are doing now more and more with
roads? Do you see that model working here?
Mr. Bailey. Absolutely. I think it is critical. It is the
way we tackle social challenges from health care to clean tech
energy. We need to do that more in education as well.
Chairman Rokita. So another thing that I was wondering
about, and I have wondered about it before, but I am reminded
as I hear Ms. Sagues' testimony and yours, Mr. Bailey, this
idea of what I call critical thinking. And you may have a
professional term for it.
But as I grew up, the idea that I was taught, especially in
the later years, to problem solve, to look at the idea of being
taught to think versus just being sent and receiving content. I
clearly see, whether it is Mr. Khan's videos that I have seen
or other situations--which are excellent, by the way. It is
great for review, for getting content, those kind of things.
How do you teach critical thinking in a virtual world? Ms.
Sagues?
Ms. Sagues. That is really a great question. So the way our
courses are set up, they are very project based. So students go
in and they do sort of authentic projects in a lot of different
areas. And they work very closely. We have what we call a high
tech, high touch environment, where the teachers and the
students work very closely together.
And our teachers actually, on a monthly basis, have to do
what is called a discussion based assessment with our students.
And they get into a very deep conversation about the content,
deeper than what you can actually, you know, assess through a
typical online assessment.
So we have a variety of different ways that we really try
to dig in and get to that level with the students. And with the
Common Core coming on board, that is exactly the shift you are
going to see all across the country with the way content is
going to be, you know, redelivered to students.
Chairman Rokita. Common Core, perhaps another hearing.
Mr. Bailey, any add on to that? Quickly.
Mr. Bailey. Just one, that I think you are seeing this new
model coming out. It is not pure blended learning, but it is
called the flip classroom. And it is rethinking the use of
time. So students, instead of doing homework at night, are
watching the videos and the lectures at night. And then they
are coming into the classroom and that is where you get some of
the critical thinking.
Because now, instead of the teacher having to lecture, they
are able to jump right into classroom discussion, small group
discussion, and sort of test out the reasoning and the thinking
around that.
Chairman Rokita. And not to leave Mr. Smith out, real
quick? Because I got some other stuff. Anything to add? Okay.
But completely online wouldn't be as good as blended,
though, for critical thinking. You disagree.
Ms. Sagues. Well, I think that there are--I don't, let me
just frame up the question maybe a little bit differently. I
think there are times when online is absolutely the best way
for critical thinking.
Chairman Rokita. Okay.
Ms. Sagues. And I think there are times when perhaps a
blended model. And I think it depends on the student as well.
So that is kind of the whole joy around the whole personalized
learning for students, because now with technology, we can
really dig in and discover how each child learns best, and then
provide them with the tools that they need.
Chairman Rokita. And what is the make up of your virtual
school in terms of low income students? Did you say? I forgot.
Ms. Sagues. In our part time schools, our low income
students run right about 40 percent. And in our full time
school, we are about 48 percent.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
In what time I have remaining, I will try to be quick. Mr.
Shelton, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, I am sure you
knew we were going to be interested in that. The principle
investigator who wanted to do the review said that you need 700
more students. We don't have that. We have about 300 now.
What is the department doing to increase that number, so
that we can get a grade here?
Mr. Shelton. Sure. So we have worked really hard with the
Children and Youth Investment Trust, which is the grantee, to
put together a new recruitment and outreach strategy, so that
they could actually recruit the number of students that are
required, and also to streamline their processes around
figuring out whether students are actually eligible for the
program, because they actually have a significant amount of
attrition.
They had some staffing changes. So they have I think a
couple of bumps in the road on the recruitment this year. But
their numbers are up over last year. And we will see what
happens.
Chairman Rokita. Any internal deadline to set for
yourselves?
Mr. Shelton. So we extended the deadline for the trust to
be able to both calibrate their new applicants as well as get
the renewals in place, in order to get the numbers up.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
My time has expired. Excuse me, I offer the microphone to
Mrs. McCarthy for the purpose of closing remarks.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. It was very informative.
And I want to thank all the witnesses. You know, from some
of us that, yes, came into the computer world after 50, I am
amazed on how fast I actually was able to learn it. But
certainly looking at my grandchildren, when I got an iPad, that
is who I went to to teach me how to use my iPad.
But I am getting there.
But I want to thank you again. And I truly am encouraged by
some of the initiatives nationwide that are helping to involve
our educational system. We have to come into the 21st century.
Today's global economy demands it. New and diverse skill
sets from our professionals--and we need to invest in our
children's equally to prepare them.
This Congress must make a commitment to updating and re-
authorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Each
day, each month, each year passes by without reauthorization is
another day, another month and another year that this country,
in my opinion, is failing our children.
I agree with our witnesses that we can not have 20th
century ideas covering 21st century classrooms. Our federal
government must be flexible, and eligible successful local
programs to grow and exceed all expectations.
I am looking forward certainly to continue our work on this
subcommittee to help provide more options to our nation's
students.
I want to thank the chairman again. And I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady. I want to thank
all the witnesses again for your time today, as well as the
committee members for participation. I think it has been an
excellent hearing.
Thank you for making it easy on me, being my first hearing
as a chairman. [Off mike comment.] [Laughter.]
I will have no comment on that comment. As we wrap up, I
just want to get one little thing on the record. And this goes
to the line of questioning I had with Mr. Shelton. And again, I
thank you, sir, for being here.
I don't know if you know. I am sure you have been briefed
perhaps. We sent a letter about D.C. Scholarship. And we asked
for a meeting, a meeting with staff to go over budgets and
those sorts of things.
And we asked for a meeting by February 22nd. So I know that
is coming. We haven't heard back from anybody. And we can't do
our oversight job----
Mr. Shelton. I will check on it and get back to you.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you very much. When will you get
back to us? [Laughter.]
Mr. Shelton. Today is Thursday? By tomorrow morning.
Chairman Rokita. Yes, sir. I like how you work, sir. Thank
you very much.
And again, thank all the witnesses. I learned a lot today.
And I appreciate your leadership in this sector, in this
community, what you are doing for our future. It is our most
precious asset. And you are all to be commended.
Thank you.
The hearing is now closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]