A Closer Look at Distance Learning in the Kansas City, Missouri School District Free

How, in a failing school district, does an administrative leadership team implement a districtwide distance learning program? Which district level management decisions were made? In short, how and why did Phase II of a transformation plan become a reality?

It is necessary to gather a historical perspective of the large, urban, majority-minority Kansas City, Missouri School District (KCMSD) in order to understand the recent transformations that have taken place. Very few school districts have experienced as much turmoil, controversy, and bad press as this district. It has “shrunken from 22,000 students in 2008 to 17,000 students in 2011, and has had more than two dozen superintendents in the past four decades” (Sulzberger, 2011). It has held provisional accreditation since 2008 and lost state accreditation January 1, 2012 (About KCMSD website, 2011).

According to the About KCMSD website, the racial composition is now 63.3 African American, 25.4% Hispanic, and 8.6% Caucasian. It is considered a Title 1 district due to its 80.3% free and reduced lunch population (http://www.kcpublicschools.org). Discipline reports are reported to be above the state average. Discipline incident reports state wide are 2 incidents per 100 students. In the KCMSD, the rate is 8 incidents per 100 students. The dropout rate is 16. 9% for the district compared to 3% statewide. Composite ACT scores are 21 for Missouri students and 16.5 for students in the KCMSD (Missouri Comprehensive Data System, 2011).

The Missouri Comprehensive Data System (2011) reports discouraging statistics for the KCMSD because it failed to meet Missouri State Improvement Plan levels in both mathematics and communication arts for Grades 3-12 during the 2010-2011 school year (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2011b). In addition, acceptable attendance levels and graduation rates were not attained in 2011. While most school districts’ scores improved, the 2011 scores were lower than those reported in 2010 (Missouri Department of Elementary School Education, 2011b). Escalating Adequate Yearly Progress targets that are required under the federal No Child Left Behind law for student achievement will increase by 8 percentage points annually, on a pace to reach the federal goal of 100% proficiency by the year 2014 (Missouri Department of elementary and Secondary Education, 2011).

However, despite its numerous shortcomings and hardships, there was a plan. As a result of the district's drastic situation, John Covington, former superintendent of the KCMSD, has implemented a two-step transformation plan that has infused extensive technological advances into the school system during the 2009 through 2013 school years. Beginning with the 2011-2012 school year, virtual, online, and distance learning opportunities were created on the high school level. Digital portfolio assessment practices for all grade levels were to be used to promote studentcentered learning. In addition, Covington incorporated student-centered and project-based learning in newly developed technology rich classroom environments (2009, p. 7).

KCMSD's mission and focus toward ensuring student readiness for the workforce has increased the district's emphasis on infusing technology in student learning, teacher preparation, administration and data management, resource distribution and technical support. The strategic planning leadership team was charged with implementing this new technology initiative throughout the district operating under demanding demographic constraints.

Covington's team developed the plan in an effort to revive a failing district and improve its chances of regaining its state accreditation. The plan is entitled The Transformation Plan: Phase I and Phase II. The transformation plan consists of five key initiatives to be executed from 2009 through 2013. It plans to create a system of student-centered learning; preparing college, career and workforce ready graduates; revolutionizing the district workforce, transforming the environment and cultivating communication (Covington, 2009).

Phase I of the transformation plan took place from 2009 through 2010 and focused on operational issues. Phase II, slotted to begin during the 2011 and 2012 school years, involves right-sizing the buildings and staff by cutting costs and unnecessary or antiquated programming. Covington uses the term “right-sizing the school district” instead of “down-sizing” to describe cutting the budget by more than $50 million to provide a balanced budget and saving the KCMSD from bankruptcy (p. 4). Over half of the district's 64 schools were closed and nearly 1,000 employees were eliminated. During Phase II of Covington's transformation plan, the district plans to “right-size” the school district and “implement a rigorous and relevant prekinder-garten–12th grade system of student-centered teaching and learning” (Covington, 2009). One important tenet of this phase of the transformation plan involves building “technology rich classroom environments.” As part of this technology initiative, massive changes were implemented during the 2011-2012 school year including a 3-year initiative:

Transformation Plan Phase II's five key initiatives are focused on producing more college, career and workforce ready graduates by providing additional technological learning opportunities. The plan specified implementing “virtual, online and distance learning” activities in order to provide KCMSD's students “access to a wide range of courses from advanced placement to fine arts to foreign language courses that they can access anytime, anywhere.” Distance learning labs were specifically identified due to their ability to allow for virtual learning experiences, expand students’ abilities to take college and dual-credit courses, and provide educational experiences not available in traditional classroom settings (Covington, 2009).

The distance learning goals provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2011a) dictate that “distance learning should enable students to achieve their educational goals by delivering academically sound courses and educational support services that are flexible, responsive and innovative. In addition, the distance learning courses should provide the same academic standards, criteria, quality, and content as traditional onsite programs” (p. 2). Also, the recent loss of accreditation by the KCMSD might possibly impact the implementation of the distance learning program within the district. Further study is needed to examine the implications resulting from the loss of accreditation on new curriculum efforts within a school district. In light of a possible state takeover, procedures are needed on how future planning will be conducted to proceed with the distance learning initiative within the KCMSD.

Distance education has a history spanning over 160 years. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2012), Moore (2007) and Rice (2006) trace the innovations in this educational method from correspondence, radio, television through present day video conferencing and Internet techniques.

Simonson et al. (2012), Moore (2007) and Smith (2009) describe the benefits of distance learning as the instructor and learner can be separated by time and space; instructor expertise can be utilized by many more students worldwide, regardless of either participant's location; collaborative activities can be explored via distance education and learning environments are no longer dictated by logistics. Simonson et al. (2012) also notes that distance education can “supplement existing curricula, promote course sharing among schools, and reach students who cannot (for physical reasons or incarceration) or do not (by choice) attend school in person” (p. 138). Harrison (2005) reports several reasons for the pursuit of distance learning in the K-12 school system, namely: the course is not available locally; to resolve timetable conflicts; to meet diploma requirements; for program enrichment; course required, and to improve grades (p. 15).

While it is difficult to estimate the scope of K-12 distance education, virtual schools have had a national impact for many years (Moore & Anderson, 2003). Virtual schools are present in Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas and many more (Simonson et al., 2012). Participation in K-12 distance education is more prevalent in rural areas due to lack of qualified instructors and potential low enrollment in more sparsely populated school districts.

The strategic planning conducted by the leadership team included a multitude of details: funding acquisition, facility design, construction, equipment purchases, staff training and development to curriculum design and evaluation. Leadership teams must seek funding for distance education programs. Increased use of the federally funded Star Schools Program has been cited as an example of supplemental distance learning with urban K-12 learners. However, some researchers claim that rural schools are more likely to achieve equity objectives through distance learning than high-minority and low-income schools (Tushnet & Fleming-McCormick, as cited in Moore & Anderson, 2003). Leadership teams in Iowa, Mississippi and Alabama sought Star Schools funding to assist in their distance education programs (Three Statewide Approaches to Distance Education, 2000).

Moore and Anderson (2003) reported that the federal government has seen educational technology and distance learning utilized as tools for use in education reform and school improvement efforts, such as group-based videoconference courses. These funds are geared more toward high-need school districts and low-income populations (p. 685). The KCMSD recounted unacceptable results in math, communication arts, and attendance and graduation rates. Its population consists of more than 80% eligible for free and/or reduced lunches. While distance learning technologies are far more commonly used for student enrichment in K-12 schools than for direct K-12 instruction, the superintendent's decision to implement distance learning opportunities throughout the district would provide additional avenues to address low test scores and declining graduation rates (Clark, 2003, as cited in Moore & Anderson, 2003).

After studying the literature, the KCMSD's strategic planning leadership team collaboratively suggested offering Advanced Placement courses within the distance learning labs at the six high schools (McBeth, 2011). The majority of courses taught via distance education in most high schools are Advanced Placement courses. The respective state boards of education mandate the requirements for Advanced Placement courses. English, U.S. history, biology, chemistry, physics, calculus, and selected foreign languages were offered via distance learning at the majority of the high school's distance learning labs (Bral, 2007; Henly, 2009; McBeth, 2011; Sabatino, 2008; Smith, 2009; SREB, 2006).

Many of the decisions made by these areas with statewide distance learning programs provided guidance to the KCMSD's strategic planning leadership team. Specifically, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Iowa began offering distance education in their schools. In 1996, South Dakota initiated the “Wiring the Schools Project” by wiring of all K-12 schools within the state allowing for high speed Internet and videoconferencing (p. 5). This initiative resulted in the Digital Dakota Network that linked every school building to a compressed video network. Oklahoma participated in the Star Schools Assistance program in 1988. It was selected to participate based on its status of being underfunded and disadvantaged (Martin, 2009). This early initiative equipped 35 schools with equipment necessary to participate in satellite-based programming: TVRO satellite C/Ku band antenna and receiver, television/monitor, videocassette recorder, TV/VCR cabinet and cordless telephone (Martin, 2009, p. 53). The purpose of this telecommunications project is to improve instruction at the elementary and secondary school levels, primarily in the areas of mathematics, science, and foreign languages (Martin, 2009, p. 51).

Berg (2002) posits five elements of distance education: physical separation; administration by an educational organization; frequent use of various media, including print, video, film, computer and audio; communication between student and teacher, synchronous or asynchronous; and administrative focus on the nontraditional learner (p. xvi).

Boschmann (1995) insisted that two fundamental steps take place when designing and building a distance learning lab: establish a design team and listen closely to the faculty and students. In addition, permanent and portable technologies need to be determined, along with distribution of electronics (p. 34). Designing a distance learning laboratory consists of three categories of design decision making.

Environmental design is related to the project's architect. Technology design focuses on integrating audio, optical, video and computer technologies into one system. The third category, interface design, deals with ergonomics and human-technology systems. (p. 39)

When the distance learning labs were being built, the leadership team needed to utilize the expertise of the Facilities Management Department as the numerous design and construction issues were considered. Boschmann (1995) advise that four categories need to be considered when contemplating designing an electronic classroom: (1) when, where, and how people learn; (2) what and why they learn; (3) the evolving role of faculty; and (4) the future of the institution itself. The classroom must allow for interactive discussion, flexible model of student-teacher interaction. Access to information is an integral part of the design therefore, it must encourage learning that must be allowed to continue across time and place by expanding information resources and communication outside the classroom. The distance learning labs will allow for individuals to continue the learning process at different times, at different paces, and at different places, even when they happen to gather in the same place at the same time.

Three additional major categories of design must be considered when creating a distance learning facility: environment, technology, and interface. The environmental design project architect considers comfort factors, projection screens, lighting, writing boards, acoustics and audio systems, ergonomics, and ADA compliance (Americans with Disabilities Act). Technology design focuses on integration of multimedia, audio, video, optical, and computer technologies into one workable system. The design team should also consider whether the equipment is user-operated, expandable, reliable, upgradable, capable of handling multiple platforms, maintenance-friendly, and secure. Interface design issues deal with ergonomics and human technology systems. In other words, can the equipment interact with humans and operate with other forms of technology. The human technology interface should be simple to operate and accessible to tech support 24/7 (Boschmann, 1995).

The key players involved in the KCMSD's Strategic Planning Leadership Team are the superintendent, the executive director of instructional technology (technical), the director of secondary schools (curriculum), the manager of instructional technology (academic), the director of guidance and counseling (scheduling), and the director of facilities management (construction).

Definitions of major concepts: distance learning, synchronous education, distance learning lab, distance learning facilitator, codecs, student-centered learning.

• Distance learning: Institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors” (Simonson et al., 2012, p. 7).

• Synchronous education: live, two-way interaction in the educational process; occurring simultaneously and in real time. Teachers lecture, ask questions, and lead discussions. Learners listen, answer, and participate (Simonson et al., 2012).

• Distance learning lab: classroom providing instruction utilizing two-way, full motion video and two way live audio broadcasts to and from a remote location with a certified teacher acting as a facilitator (Moore & Anderson, 2003).

• Distance learning facilitator: certified teacher, trained as a distance learning instructor in a technology-enhanced, distance learning classroom

• CODECs: “A coder-decoder … is used to convert analog signals, such as television, to digital form for for transmission and back again to the original analog form for viewing” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2010, p. 110).

• Student-centered learning: Students take ownership of their learning and show mastery through hands-on, project-based education (Covington, 2009).

Each of the six KCMSD high schools located within the KCMSD contain distance learning labs with the following equipment: theater seating, CODEC, two interactive whiteboards, multiple monitors and microphones, document cameras, COWS (carts on wheels) with 33 laptops loaded with Microsoft Office, Rosetta Stone Spanish, and Rosetta Stone French. These schools are: East, Northeast, Southwest Early College Campus, Paseo Academy of Fine and Performing Arts, Lincoln College Preparatory Academy, and Central High Schools.

The Implementation Team's planning begins six months prior to the beginning of the next school year. Microsoft Project software that performs computerized Gantt charts assists the implementation team in designing, construction, ordering supplies and installation of equipment. The approximate cost of each distance learning lab is $160,000-$190,000 (Anstaett & Brenneman, 2011).

Sabatino (2008) offers suggestions for classroom management techniques to be utilized when teaching K-12 students at a distance. Since videoconferencing and virtual environments offer the greatest potential for interactivity, classroom management is critical to optimum learning (Sabatino, 2008; Urban, 2006).

New facilitators should be brought in and taught the Tandberg (videoconferencing) format. However, when facilitators are temporary, or if the Tandberg system needs to be revised, adjustments will be made accordingly. It is necessary that the full installation of the new system and the control boards are supervised to ensure they are installed correctly (Anstaett, 2011).

Six to 8 weeks prior to the beginning of school, the implementation team begins reevaluating and revising the distance learning lab facilitator training classes. Facilitators must be hired and trained on the job skills necessary to fulfill the facilitator's responsibilities. The teachers are assigned to labs and will complete training in ample time before schools. If necessary, training on the previous system might be necessary until the new system can be completely installed. Training documents should be developed to instruct teachers in running the document cameras, microphones, CODECS, computers, ENO interactive white boards and other equipment utilized in the distance learning labs (Anstaett, 2011; Brenneman, 2011).

Information technology trainers and the distance learning lab managers should work together in classrooms with facilitators and teachers to assist as they entered this new method of delivering education. Teacher reassignments and scheduling changes were made to accommodate the changes in curriculum and staffing. Additional construction and installation requests were made and are in the process of being completed. The labs are expected to be completely operational and identical in most design details. At that time, all teachers and facilitators will be provided additional and extensive training. The teachers have been the stable foundation for most of this (Anstaett, 2011; South Dakota Department of Distance Education, 2003).

Several teachers are participating in the distance learning lab program by teaching the following subjects: Advanced Placement literature, Advanced Placement biology/chemistry/physics, French I and II, Spanish 3 and 4, calculus, and accounting.

All of the distance learning labs were open on time, according to the transformation plan. Students are able to take courses not offered by their local schools. Budget constraints were adhered to. Students can enjoy a state-of-the-art facility. Students can receive extrinsic motivation by learning in a separate setting from their peers.

Various distance learning lab hardware and equipment installation are not fully operational. Bell and assembly schedules periodically experience conflicts. There is concern that Advanced Placement courses will be discontinued and replaced with International Baccalaureate courses that are more holistic and very expensive. The state of Missouri pays for students to take the Advanced Placement examination to earn college credit. Some teachers would like to see a dual credit opportunity for students to get high school and college credit simultaneously. Communication between facilities needs to be better defined. More teacher and facilitator training is needed for troubleshooting equipment and software.

The KCMSD's Technology Plan includes the installation of one additional distance learning lab in each of the district's six high schools by August 2012. One-to-one mobile/tablet devices are also planned to increase technical expertise within the student population.

The distance learning labs will be used to initiate relationships with students in New York, England, France, and Spain. Neighborhood connections will commence as afternoon and evening programming is started in the distance learning labs. It is hoped that the increase in academic rigor will aid the KCMSD in raising its standardized test scores.

An evaluation of the results of the combined efforts of the strategic planning leadership team and other departments will determine the success of the distance learning labs. Simonson et al. (2012) discussed the importance of evaluation as “part of the plans to move from traditional face-to-face instruction to distance education” (p. 348). In this work, Simonson (2012) describes an evaluation of distance education programs using five steps: reactions (Did they like it?); learning (Did they learn it?); transfer (Will they use it?); results (Will it matter?); and return on investment (p. 349). These evaluation steps will provide insight into the success of the new technological initiative.

The AEIOU Evaluation approach by Fortune and Keith (1992, as cited in Simonson et al., 2012), provided program evaluation specifically for distance education implementation projects. The five components of the AEIOU approach provide “formative information to the staff about the implementation their project and summative information about the value of the project and its activities (p. 353). Accountability (A) asks “Did the project planners do what they said they were going to do?” Effectiveness (E) asks “How well done was the project?” Impact queries “Did the project, course, or program make a difference?” Organizational Context (O) poses “What structures, policies, or events in the organization or environment helped or hindered the project in accomplishing its goals?” Unanticipated consequences (U) inquires “What changes or consequences of importance happened as a result of the projects that were not expected?” (p. 353).

These questions will provide insight into the processes, methods and decisionmaking activities utilized by the strategic planning leadership team while developing a distance learning program within the KCMSD.