Comments about ‘SB65 complicates online learning’

Thanks for the insight. The state needs to make access easier to take the classes and quicker for the proficient to get their degrees. Then, fund it fairly even if that includes some fees to the student. Nothing in the current law helps accomplish these goals and it is a poor bill than needs to be revisited in this session.

It's unfortunate that John is comfortable repeating so much misinformation without doing a little fact checking. SB65 does not allow for private providers. Only school districts and charter schools can participate in online learning. Also a look at EHS credit recovery shows that the only classes they have had success in are a small handful of classes which are very inexpensive to offer online. Going back to this model would stifle all of the innovation that we see happening around the state because of SB65. Of course there are rough edges that need to be smoothed and the legislature will be taking that up this year. But SB65 is a solid step forward by any reasonable measure.

"K-12 Online" is just one private provider that Utah's public providers can contract with to provide their online classes. So public dollars simply flow through to private providers with added layers of cost.

And what's really unfortunate is that Rep Brad Daw was comfortable pushing this legislation through without doing his own fact-checking. Classes taken through EHS for credit recovery are much different than the classes taken to expand education opportunities - just as the students who use credit recovery have different needs than those who take classes to accelerate their learning. Going forward with SB65 without significant changes will stifle all of the great things that have been happening with online education for the past 15 years.

Great analysis of the situation. Did most legislators simply vote for this bill because they thought we didn't already have available online classes for high school students? SB65 is a big step backward.

EHS hasn't worked well at actually passing and graduating students. SB65 might not be perfect, but it is a big improvement. Also, the writer didn't get his facts straight as the classes have to be from a charter school or district.

Actually, John does have his facts straight. SB65 does allow for private providers, and in fact encourages it. That is the whole point, Parent for Choice want private providers and they want our tax dollars to go there. Electronic High School is terrific and many students use it for both credit recovery and credit acceleration. It will be difficult for students next year when EHS is done away with. Our legislators who put this bill together did understand the long term consequences, they were explained throughly to them, but they are more concerned about "bleeding the beast" and turning education over to private providers than they are about the needs of the student.

I'm disappointed that UtahReader is willing to continue to believe something that is so easily proven false. Please go read the text of SB65 and you will see that it allows only charter and district schools to provide online education. I'm also amazed that both John and utahreader would continue to support EHS in its current form when it can boast less than a 30% completion rate and only has any large offering in basic and easy to take courses. I agree with FreedomK that we need to address credit recovery, but we need to do this in a way that does greatly improve both the quality of the offering and the completion rate.

Brad Draw- read the bill and learn what was forced on to public schools. In order to create an online course it takes years, not a few weeks. So districts where forced to contract with private providers in an effort to reduce the amount of money taken out of there hands to educate the local student, now most districts are paying online providers for access to the curriculum.

This is just one more step in the efforts of the legislature to undermine public education, I would not be surprised if we follow the money through the providers it comes around to our own legislature. This reminds me of the UTA or the UDOT scams.

Abitout - School districts and charter schools have been able to contract with or buy software before SB65. In fact, Provo, Alpine, and Washington County school districts are just a few that already have their own programs and some of those districts even lobbied in favor of the bill. That's a lot of the larger districts and I suspect the rest either have or will have their own online curriculum quickly. In any event it is still the district or charter school providing the course and controlling the content and in most cases, it is the school district creating the course.

The author makes some good points. However, he neglected to point out that down the road that in 2016 when students can take more classes, it will cost the school district DOUBLE the money to pay for private online classes for the student than the money it receives from the stated to educate the student (WPU).

With all due respect to Rep Daw, this is exactly the problem with many on Capitol Hill. K-12 Online Learning is a privately owned company. So, yes, our precious WPU dollars go to private providers.
As for the Parents for Choice false information that only EHS has a 30% success rate, you need to do some checking. That rate reflects a passing grade and completion of the course. Many of those students return to the traditional public school because they recognize that online learning is not for them.
Lastly, how can you support the cost of $723 per course, Representative?? That is a disporpotionate amount of the wpu.
If all of you would spend some time in our traditional public schools, you would recognize the amazing and innovative uses of technology which currently exist. The middle school in Davis which has absolutlely no textbooks is simply one example.
I am tired of hearing that our traditional public schools are not innovative from those who have not set foot in our schools to see what is happening. Follow the money, someone stands to gain a ton of it through this legislation.