Disappointing Comments at iNACOL VSS2009

Okay. Before I begin, full disclosure here. I work for K12, Inc. as the Director Of Instruction, where I help teachers to learn how to effectively apply our curriculum to meet the needs of their students and schools.

Having said this, I respectfully take issue with some comments that were reportedly shared by Lee Barratt, Director of Fiscal Services at Colorado’s Charter School Institute at today’s iNACOL Virtual Schools Symposium in Austin, TX. I say “reportedly” since I wasn’t there in person (alas, budget restrictions). I’m getting my information by edits made by wikispaces user alfords to the VSS Overlay wiki.

I quote:

“Some states use EMO providers and rely on them to address accountability issues. CO DOE asks how the content is evaluated and how are the gaps addressed? Teachers are geared to state standards whereas EMOs are not geared to “teach the test.” Strongly suggests that we not rely on EMO for standardized curriculum but that districts align curriculum to their own district/state curriculum.”

Now, I can’t speak for all EMOs but I can talk about my own experience working for one. I actually agree with Mr. Barratt on his first point – we don’t design our curriculum to “teach the test”, and for good reason: it’s not an instructionally sound pedagogy. We prefer to design courses to teach content that happens to be included in state standards. I would think those interested in public education would prefer educated students, not just those trained to beat a test.

A second citation from this session indicates that schools should have teachers write their own online courses, because:

“…(t)he voice of the teacher comes through in the class and EMOs do not. The EMO is not invested in the class like the district teacher is. Strong suggestion that we write our own courses rather than outsource.”

Again, I agree with Mr. Barratt’s first point here – standardized courses do not include a teacher’s voice right out of the box – anymore than a text book or laboratory guide does. That is why we rely on teachers to teach the curriculum – to ensure that it is accessible to students,that misconceptions are addressed early and learning gaps are closed. However, to suggest that an EMO – somehow by the simple fact that it is an EMO – is not invested in a class as strongly as a district is questionable at best. Again, I can’t speak for all EMOs – only the one that is kind enough to sign my check. But ours would have to be on the exception list for this statement. And it makes me wonder – where is Mr. Barratt getting his information? Was it from a bad experience with another vendor? If so, he should be more specific – and perhaps look at other EMOs. A grand generalization that EMOs are not invested in the success of the schools and students using their curriculum and services is unfair at best.