Reply by Ralph Helder on October 23, 2008 at 11:39am

As I look at each student vignette I can visualize all of them belonging to the same school. Unfortunately, this is not possible in most schools today because of the ingrained and sometimes self-imposed pedagogical structure of most of our schools today.

I believe that the discovery phase of the DL strategy has shown us that school authorities and the schools within their jurisdictions need to be much more flexible in the models of delivery that they are willing to support when providing educational programming that is relevant and tailored to suit individual students.

School authorities need to be accountable not only to the Ministry for student outcomes and success but also need to consider being accountable to individual students for the education programs that they have established to meet their needs.

In each of the vignettes the Ministry needs to be held accountable for establishing learner outcomes for all students and holding respective school authorities accountable for achieving the same. Equity and flexibility of funding are other areas where the Ministry must be held accountable. I don't necessarily believe that CSI funding and funding initiatives like CSI funding do a whole lot to guarantee student success. On the contrary, if school districts are provided funding to support
alternative delivery of programming for all students we may see more success. Classroom Size Initiative funding does very little to encourage school districts to look outside the traditional four walls of the classroom for more and varied successful alternatives.

Ralph Helder

Reply by Tim Winkelmans on October 24, 2008 at 11:01am

Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I think a school authority should be accountable for several things:

1. Student results for those parts of the strategy that are identified as school authority responsibilities
2. Respecting and supporting student/parent choices for parts of the program that may not originate with the authority

I'm assuming there will be more than one DL provider and students may have options outside of catchment areas. As a student, possibly attending a school in Calgary and perhaps taking a DL course from Edmonton or ADLC, that my school is still supporting my full program - I can use the school library and computer lab to work on my DL courses (if they are open) and the school will facilitate supervising/invigilating tests.

There's a direct connection between teacher efficacy and student success, so developing teacher capacity is important - including professional development, learning resources, and effective educational technologies. These are universal needs - I think the province and authorities share accountability here. The province or its agencies can establish standards, negotiate for affordable learning resources, support research, develop infrastructures, and coordinate professional development programs -- otherwise every authority has to invest in its own capacity to do these things. Notwithstanding, the province should leave room for local innovation. Perhaps I'm thinking enabling vs prescriptive.

That said, i think authorities are responsible for assisting in setting requirements and standards for provincial activities and then participating fully within them. DL teachers need release time for pro-d and need access to quality resources and educational technologies. (Within this response, again, an assumption that the province is not delivering the educational program directly to students but working with authorities engaged in DL program delivery).

Governance and funding are big topics in their own right.

Reply by Ron Taylor on October 31, 2008 at 5:09pm

II cannot attend the forum but I hope that discussions address a few questions I have. In the face of inevitable finite resources how should we make decisions? I am hoping to hear about assigning responsibility for decisions to those best able to make the decision. What are the indicators that someone or some group is in the best position to make the decision? We are fond of saying that those closest to the situation ought to make the decision but what if those persons do not have the experience, skills, or training to make a decision that is in the best interest of those directly affected by the decision? What are the ways that we can enable a robust decision-making process? I am looking for both the ways in which we decide which decisions belong where and how we ensure the decision-makers have what they need to make well informed decisions. I am also looking for ideas that get us thinking about a more dynamic governance and leadership process.

The authors of "Getting to Maybe" emphasize that in complex situations we must continually engage in the process. I've paraphrased some of their principles for distributed learning.

1. Leadership respects the complex nature of distributed learning.
The Internet is changing the way we think and do many things. It offers new opportunities and creates new expectations. Albertans are part of a global community interested in using these new opportunities to enhance student learning. As we design an Alberta approach to distributed learning we use a leadership model that is agile and responsive.

2. Involves a cross-section of groups—those that provide the distributed learning services and those who use them.
We approach this initiative thinking about the big-picture. By involving a wider range of people and groups we can ensure we are doing the right things and not just doing things right.

3. Committed to cooperation, both within Alberta and beyond, to gather the best ideas, products, and services.
We begin by acknowledging that we don’t have a monopoly on great ideas, products, and services. The Internet is enabling cooperation on massive scales and we seek opportunities to contribute to and to gain from these cooperative efforts.

4. Dedicated to the vision and constantly gathering data, scanning the environment, and tracking trends.
Success for all Alberta students is our constant goal and in an environment that is undergoing constant change we must be dedicated to ongoing evaluation of our efforts to reach that goal.

5. Adapts strategies based on knowledge gained during implementation.
Changes in environments and technologies are resulting in new ways to accomplish established tasks and introduce learning and teaching opportunities not previously possible.

6. Encourages safe-fail experiments that promote promising new practices.
Distributed learning will attempt to make the best learning environment possible in this new context. We acknowledge the innovative nature of distributed learning and support an environment where partners can conduct action research.

Reply by Brian Shields on October 31, 2008 at 6:07pm

Sorry you can't join us. I agree with what you are saying about being open to new ideas or suggestions regarding governance, decision making and establishing directions ... it is easy to approach a discussion as if you have all the answers and feel compelled to share the insights/wisdom ... it is quite another to engage in open discussion, sensitive to suggestions and alternative views.

Sometimes it is enough to identify the direction that you don't want to go ... not sure that this is such a time since the decisions have weighty implications. It is clearly time to choose a new path.

We know what we have seen in DL that works well. We know that if DL structures are put in place that are open and accessible ... the structures can maintain themselves ... they can even become self-sustaining (a certain social network comes to mind in terms of "action research"). If the DL structures are supported and directed, that is a bonus.

I am confident that we can implement such a structure and that it will be adaptive to the changing needs of our students and the diversity of new technologies that we will encounter ... as you say, it needs to be "adaptive". I am also confident that those making decisions regarding the future of DL, regardless of who they are, will create such a structure ... if they follow the guiding principles emerging from conversations leading to the 9 pillars and additional insights that have developed through our ongoing conversations ... if they are "dedicated to the vision".

Reply by Stacey Pelland 1 day ago

As a parent of a struggling math student, I was thrilled to discover
that I could purchase TLE home edition (the learning equation) for her. The
opportunity for her to independently review lessons and have access to
extra practice has allowed her to find success in math. I have since
heard that TLE will no longer be available for the new curriculum. I
would hope this tool does not disappear because it is not profitable for
the publisher. Alberta Education needs to find someway to ensure that
these tools are available and accessible for all students. As the DL
discussion continues I hope we do not lose sight that some of these
tools exist, and can be replicated for students success.

Reply by Brian Shields 1 day ago

This is a very good point Stacey. It raises significant questions about the role that publishing companies should play in the development of online resources. Would they be willing to make those resources available to parents working at home with their student/children in tutorial settings? What responsibilites should the publishers have to maintaining and supporting those resources? The TLE, as an online math resource, is an excellent example of this. How does the development of resources by publishing companies work with the idea of open access to all Albertans? You raise some significant questions that have not been explored in our discussions.