Nearly 800 high school students in the Atlanta Public Schools attended an online summer school that had to be overhauled when it became clear it wasn’t moving students fast or far enough.
Along with adding two days to the 16-day summer term, APS discarded the online component and brought in teachers for small group instruction.
In explaining the sudden shift, APS spokeswoman Jill Strickland told the AJC, “The district took this action based on the varying learning modalities of our students — meaning some students work better face-to-face.”
I asked APS for more information — specifically, was its online summer term a flop? My goal wasn’t to denigrate APS for innovating, but to get a better fix on what works and what doesn’t in virtual classrooms. We’re in the early days of a revolution, with a growing number of k-12 learning experiences going online. Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties are all offering some form of online summer school this year.
My 16-year-old son finished a world history course last week through the state Department of Education’s Georgia Virtual School. The amount of time he devoted to the class — which compressed a year-long course into five weeks — suggested to me that online learning works best for motivated and disciplined students. On average, the class required six hours a day because of all the reading. The GVS course drew 51 students, most from high-performing north Fulton high schools who enrolled to free their regular school schedules for more science.
Strickland said APS used a blended learning model, “which included 75 percent online instruction and 25 percent face-to-face instruction for students enrolled in the summer credit recovery program.” So, the students were not overachievers seeking to take accelerated math. These were kids who didn’t pass their classes.
So, APS sat them down in front of screens at four high schools with an off-the-shelf program from a company that provides online and blended courses. The computer-based program began with a test that identified where students needed help and adapted the lessons accordingly.
“In a traditional model, students could possibly spend a majority of their summer school hours sitting through lessons on standards they have already mastered, but this adaptive tool ensures that teachers are able to target instruction based upon the specific content for which the student needs additional support,” said Strickland. “Many students attending summer school have not been successful in a traditional model. This nationally recognized technology solution caters to the learning modalities of many students who do not learn best with a traditional stand-and-deliver approach.”
But do students who are unsuccessful in traditional classrooms fare any better with computer-based approaches, which may require even more focus and discipline? I still don’t think we know. It’s a critical issue as more systems embrace online courses.
APS described the 16-day summer term as a pilot, and apparently realized after the second week it wasn’t succeeding as students and teachers complained to the media. Asked at the 11th hour to catch up lagging students, one teacher told Channel 2 Action News, “Some students have completed just 10 percent of the work. They’re telling us to do something that is impossible.”
In a bit of artful dodging to the matter of the program’s results, Strickland said, “As the world of technology evolves and provides increased opportunities for the individualization of education, APS is committed to embracing innovative practices that ensure more students are successful. With that innovation, however, comes the expectation that there will be a steep learning curve, and that not every implementation will go flawlessly.”
The issue isn’t whether the program or its implementation was flawless. Was it even effective?
About the Author
