Content uploaded by Michael K. Barbour
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael K. Barbour on Oct 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
The image on the front cover was selected through a Creative Commons search of Google Images for funding
“distance learning.” This particular image was from the U.S. National Park Service.
Thanks to Randy LaBonte, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian eLearning Network, for feedback on various
drafts of this report.
!
!
!
i!
Funding and Resourcing of Distributed Learning
Executive Summary
In Fall 2017, the Government of British Columbia (2017) began a review of the model that it
uses to fund K-12 education. In the press release announcing the members of the review panel,
the Government (2018a) described the goal of the review was “to find a better way to provide
equitable and predictable funding to boards of education” (¶ 5). As a part of this review, the
government panel released a discussion paper that stated, among other things, that there was “an
artificial division in the current model between ‘bricks-and-mortar’ and distributed learning,
which should not exist” (Government of British Columbia, 2018d, p. 3).
The purpose of this brief is to examine the nature of distributed learning funding in British
Columbia and how that compares to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States. This
brief begins with an overview of the existing funding model in British Columbia with respect to
distributed learning. This is followed by a description of how distributed learning is funded and
resourced in other Canadian jurisdictions. The brief concludes with an exploration of the
research literature related to funding distributed learning, most of which focuses on contexts in
the United States.
This brief outlines how distributed learning funding models across Canada generally fall into one
of three models. First, the government directly funds and/or resources distributed learning
opportunities. Second, individual distributed learning programs charge a fee for students who
enroll on a per course basis (often paid for by the school or school district). Third, the
government provides direct funding for the distributed learning program through FTEs/CEUs.
Interestingly, those Canadian jurisdictions that did fund distributed learning through FTEs/CEUs
provided less funding for distributed learning enrollments compared to traditional brick-and-
mortar enrollments.
The larger body of literature indicates that the American context generally follows the second for
supplemental program and the third model for full-time programs. However, it is important to
understand the role of private enterprise in public education with respect to distributed learning
in the United States, and the impact this has on the funding of full-time distributed learning
programs. There is also the issue of whether the government has the obligation to provide the
same funding for public education regardless of the modality that education is delivered. As
Ministries of Education across Canada review and revise funding models in their jurisdictions,
issues of equity and access to effective learning options must be considered. Funding is a critical
driver for educational practice. The research community would serve students and schools well
to keep funding models for K-12 education in the forefront of their work.
!
!
!
! !
!
!
1
Introduction
In Fall 2017, the Government of British Columbia (2017) began a review of the model
that it uses to fund K-12 education. In the press release announcing the members of the review
panel, the Government (2018a) described the goal of the review was “to find a better way to
provide equitable and predictable funding to boards of education” (¶ 5). In the terms of
reference laid out for the review panel, the first main duty of the panel was to “review and
provide feedback on a discussion paper and supporting materials (based on information gathered
through initial fall engagement process)” (Government of British Columbia, 2018b, p. 1).
According to the K-12 Public Education Funding Model Review website:
the Panel concluded stakeholder engagement which was primarily focused on K-12
sector stakeholders including Boards of Education, partner organizations, and school
district management staff. Stakeholders provided written submissions, participated in
surveys (i.e. Perspectives and Technical), and attended meetings with the panel (i.e.
regional working sessions, one-on-one meetings. (Government of British Columbia,
2018c, ¶ 4).
The panel’s discussion paper was released in May 2018.
One of the unique aspects of this funding review in British Columbia was the fact that the
province has historically been a leader in K-12 distance or distributed learning. According to the
annual State of the Nation: K-12 e-Learning in Canada reports (Barbour, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013; Barbour & LaBonte, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017; Barbour & Stewart, 2008), British
Columbia has consistently had the highest number of students enrolled in distributed learning
and the highest proportion of students involved in distributed learning (usually two to four times
the national average). While the discussion paper released by the K-12 funding review panel
focused primarily on how traditional brick-and-mortar education was funded, there was one
reference to distributed learning. Under the section “Learning Transformation and Choice for
Students,” the review panel wrote:
The current model of funding distributed learning (DL) is not working for most school
districts. There is an artificial division in the current model between ‘bricks-and-mortar’
and DL, which should not exist, especially in the context of the new curriculum.
(Government of British Columbia, 2018d, p. 3)
In short, despite having the highest proportion of student population involved in distributed
learning, the funding model in place that likely led to this level of student engagement in
distributed or distance learning has reportedly become a cause of concern for school districts.
This observation may also reflect the growing trend towards blended learning, and a blurring of
the lines between what truly is online learning (or distributed learning) and what is face-to-face
learning that is supported by online tools, resources, and pedagogies.
Interestingly, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (2017) has also established a
Task Force on Distributed Learning to examine a variety of issues related to distributed learning,
!
!
2
including funding and resourcing. While the task force is still in process, the British Columbia
Teachers’ Federation has an existing policy that advocates for:
Review policies and funding for Distributed Learning programs to create a system that is
built on a co-operative, provincial basis, provides funding for provincial course
development consistent with the curriculum changes, and has the resources to provide
teaching conditions that are comparable to teachers in face-to-face programs. (¶ 10)
The policy points to the importance of ensuring that the funding provides an equitable teaching
situation between classroom and distributed teaching environments.
The purpose of this brief is to examine the nature of distributed learning funding in
British Columbia and how that compares to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States.
This brief begins with an overview of the existing funding model in British Columbia with
respect to distributed learning. This initial overview is followed by a description of how
distributed learning is funded and resourced in other Canadian jurisdictions. The brief concludes
with an exploration of the research literature related to funding distributed learning, most of
which focuses on contexts in the United States. It should be noted that the term used to describe
K-12 distance education in British Columbia is distributed learning. The use of this term varies
across Canada and the United States, with most jurisdictions using distance education, online
learning, or e-learning. Throughout this brief, whatever term is common in the jurisdiction being
discussed will be used. Readers should remember that distributed learning, distance education,
online learning, and e-learning are used synonymously throughout the brief. Similarly, the terms
school and program are also used interchangeably.
Distributed Learning Funding in British Columbia
British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that “has significant provisions for the
operation of e-learning programs in the School Act and Independent School Act as well as in
provincial policy” (LaBonte & Barbour, 2018, pp. 606-607). Changes made to the School Act
and Independent School Act in 2002 resulted in a system that funded distributed learning based
on:
• continuous enrolment, rather than a single annual snapshot
• actual attendance to initiate an enrolment claim, rather than simple enrolment
• shift to course-based funding, beginning in grade 10 (Winkelmans, 2011, p. 25).
Students enrolled in kindergarten to grade nine either enrolled full-time in brick-and-mortar
schooling or distributed learning. However, the “course-based funding model used to support
grades 10 to 12 students does not generally impose a limit on the number of courses for which a
student can be funded. Although a Full-time Equivalent (FTE) equates to eight full-year courses”
(p. 25). This allows for a student in grade 10 through 12 to enroll in five courses from Brick-
and-Mortar School A, two courses from Distributed Learning School B, and one course from
Distributed Learning School C (see Table 1).
!
!
3
Table 1.
Sample enrollment of a fictional British Columbia student
School
Courses Enrolled
Proportion of the FTE
Brick-and-Mortar School A
5
5/8
Distributed Learning School B
2
2/8
Distributed Learning School C
1
1/8
As illustrated above, Brick-and-Mortar School A would receive 5/8 of the FTE, Distributed
Learning School B 2/8 of the FTE, and Distributed Learning School C 1/8 of the FTE.
To add another level of complexity, British Columbia is also the only jurisdiction that has
one FTE for brick-and-mortar enrollments and a different FTE for distributed learning
enrollments. According to Barbour and LaBonte (2017), “during the 2016-17 school year, the
basic allocation school-age equivalent for students attending a [public] brick-and-mortar school
was $7,218 (or $902.25/course), while only $6,030 (or $753.75/course) for a student attending a
distributed learning school” (p. 36). The province funds independent (i.e., private) distributed
learning schools at up to 50 percent of the funding level provided to public schools
(Winkelmans, Anderson, & Barbour, 2010).1
Of note as well, the basic funding level for distributed learning is approximately 83.5% of
the funding provided to brick-and-mortar enrollments. Table 2 extends the example above, and
shows that our fictional student would generate $4511.25 for Brick-and-Mortar School A,
$1507.50 for Distributed Learning School B, and $753.75 for Distributed Learning School C.
Table 2.
Sample enrollment of a fictional British Columbia student
School
District
Courses
Enrolled
Proportion of the
FTE
Funding
Brick-and-Mortar
School A
District 1
5
5/8
$4511.25
Distributed Learning
School B
District 2
2
2/8
$1507.50
Distributed Learning
School C
District 1
1
1/8
$753.75
As all public distributed learning programs are operated by a school district, Table 2 provides the
additional detail of which district each school is located in. Given the distributed learning FTE is
funded at a lower amount, District 1 is economically disadvantaged by the fact that a student
attending one of their brick-and-mortar schools is also enrolled in a course in their distributed
learning school. This reality is why there are sometimes rumours that some schools and districts
informally discourage students from enrolling in distributed learning courses, although any
formal discouragement is against the Schools Act and provincial policy.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Based on the current Independent School Regulation, the funding about is either 63% or 44.1%, depending on
whether it is a Group 1 distributed learning independent school or a Group 2 distributed learning independent school
(Government of British Columbia, 2014).
!
!
4
It is also important to note that, “individual e-learning programs must allocate internal
resources for the development of their own course content and pay license and/or service fees for
a learning management system to support distribution of the courses” (LaBonte & Barbour,
2018, p. 607). Some distributed learning programs have elected to participate in consortiums to
help share the cost of resourcing. For example, the Consortium of Online Learning included
distributed learning programs from four school districts that shared a learning management
system and co-created online course content (LaBonte, 2005). More recently, the British
Columbia Learning Network2 is a consortium of school district distributed learning programs
that work together to develop online course content. But it should be underscored that individual
distributed learning programs in British Columbia must use the funding they receive from their
FTE allocation to resource their programs regardless of their involvement in these consortiums.
Finally, British Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions that utilizes a continuous
enrollment option for distributed learning (although not all distributed learning programs allow
this option). According to Winkelmans (2011):
For students in Kindergarten through grade 9:
• students reported Active as of September 30 receive the full FTE
allocation
• new student counts reported as Active between the September and
February receive 50% of the FTE allocation for support to the end of the
school year
• new student counts reported as Active between the February and May
generate 33.3% of the FTE allocation for support to the end of the school
year
For students in grade 10 or higher, new courses are reported and generate the full course
allocation (usually 0.125 FTE) for support to the end of the course, regardless of
whichever school year or fiscal year that may fall in. (pp. 26-27)
Winkelmans continued with a specific example of the continuous enrollment policy at the
secondary level, he wrote:
Pat enrolls in an online chemistry course in late August and an online biology course the
following April, and takes a year to complete each. Assuming the course statuses are
Active by September and May respectively, the chemistry course will trigger 0.125 FTE
funding in September and the biology course will trigger 0.125 FTE funding in May.
Even though Pat is still in those courses the following school year, the distributed
learning school may not claim new course funding again, unless Pat takes yet another
course. (p. 27)
While continuous enrollment allows distributed learning schools flexibility to serve students with
unique needs, it also creates additional administrative responsibilities for record keeping. For
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 The British Columbia Learning Network has been rebranded as the Western Canada Learning Network, now that it
has expanded to include distributed learning programs in Alberta and the Yukon.
!
!
5
students that continue their courses into the following school year, like Pat, the online teacher
responsible for the student in the following school year is often not financially remunerated for
that enrollment because the distributed learning school did not receive any funding for that
student (Jamison & Barbour, 2018).
Distributed Learning Funding in Other Canadian Jurisdictions
While British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that employs a model where
the funding follows the student, it is not the only jurisdiction that has a distinct funding model for
distributed learning.
Alberta
According to Barbour and LaBonte (2017), Alberta Education also tracks and funds
distance and online learning based upon the use of three specific codes schools enter into the
student information system.
1. Schools may indicate on their annual operating plans that they offer an online
program.
2. Courses may be identified as virtual and distance learning in provincial student
information systems.
3. Students who are completing the majority of their courses online can be
identified as such using the online learning student enrollment code. (p. 32)
It is the ‘a student in an online program (code 620)’ that generates the most interest, as “the
Funding Manual for School Authorities prescribes funding mechanisms that are not available
when a student is enrolled as an online learning student” (pp. 32-33). An examination of the
Funding Manual for School Authorities 2018/19 revealed the following qualifications of areas of
FTE and credit enrolment units (CEU) funding where code 620 students receive different
amounts than traditional brick-and-mortar students (FTE applies to students from early
childhood services to grade 9, whereas CEU applies to students in grades 10 to 12).
Section 1.2: Grades 1-12 Base Instruction Funding
• “For regular courses submitted as complete (COM) or withdrawn (WDR) and
delivered to students online or by distance learning, the attendance funding
criteria may not apply (refer to 8b)”
8. b) A regular course (non-career technology studies) submitted as COM or
withdrawn WDR is considered completed for funding purposes when:
i. a student has earned a final mark of 50 per cent or greater in the course; or
ii. a student has earned a final mark of 25 per cent or greater but less than 50 per
cent in the course, and has attended at least 50 per cent of the classes in the course
or has worked on and been assessed on at least 50 per cent of the course content.
When a student changes from one course to another within an academic program
in the same term (e.g. student switches from Social Studies 10-1 to Social Studies
!
!
6
10-2), school authorities shall only claim one course for funding.” (Alberta
Education, 2018, p. 17).
Section 1.6: English as a Second Language Funding (ESL)
Section 1.7: Francisation Funding (Francophone Regional Authorities only)
Section 1.11: Northern Allowance Funding
Section 1.14: Equity of Opportunity Funding
• “Funded students enrolled in home education, shared responsibility, outreach or
online programs are not eligible for funding under this section.” (pp. 24-25 / p. 25
/ p. 29 / p. 33)
Section 1.17: Plant Operations and Maintenance (School Jurisdictions)
• “The POM calculation is based on the following rates applied to the FTE Funded
enrolment taken from the Frozen Funded Head Count of the previous year. For
the purpose of this grant, a. a student in an online program (code 620) is not
included” (p. 34)
Section 1.20: Rural Transportation Funding
Section 1.21: Urban Transportation Funding
• “5. Students in an online program or outreach program where they are accessing
50 per cent or more of their educational program at a school of the board or
students in a shared responsibility program, that are transported by the board to a
school, may be claimed as eligible passengers under Rural Transportation.” (p. 42
/ p. 46)
Section 3.3: Severe Disabilities Funding Private Schools (including DSEPS) and Charter
Schools
• “5. Students with severe disabilities enrolled in an online program, shared
responsibility program or home education program are not eligible for severe
disabilities funding.” (p. 59)
Section 3.10: Plant Operations and Maintenance Funding
• “3. For the purpose of this grant:
a) a student in an online program (code 620) is not included.” (p. 62)
Section 4.1: FNMI – Education Funding
• “6. Funded students enrolled in home education, shared responsibility or online
programs are not eligible for funding under this section.” (p. 60)
!
!
7
Section 6.1: Regional Collaborative Service Delivery Funding (School Authorities)
• “1. b. Funded students enrolled in home education, shared responsibility, outreach
or online programs are included in this allocation.
2. d. Funding is provided to RCSD regions for all funded children/students in
school authorities including those enrolled in home education, shared
responsibility, outreach or online programs.
Eligible Students X Regional Differential Modifiers Per Student Rate
3. Children and youth, who are registered with school authorities and First
Nations schools in alternative programs such as home education, shared
responsibility, outreach and online and children and youth with complex needs
and/or a low incidence disability are eligible for supports and services through
RCSD.” (pp. 71-72)
Section 8.2: Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal – School Jurisdictions
• “2. The enrolment number for IMR is based on the FTE funded enrolment taken
from the frozen funded head count of the previous year. For the purpose of this
grant;
a. a student in an online program (code 620) is not included;” (p. 88)
As highlighted in these sections, in some cases an online student is only funded at a portion of
the rate that a regular brick-and-mortar student is funded. However, in other cases funding is
dependent on the actual course score a student has received in the online course or what
proportion of the student’s programming is online. In terms of the actual course score a student
has received in the online course, this references the completion-based funding that Alberta uses
for all its educational funding (i.e., both brick-and-mortar and online). Finally, in some cases the
funding area is simply not applicable to an online student. Interestingly, Barbour and LaBonte
(2017) reported that “Alberta Education is aware that some schools and school authorities may
not use the appropriate coding for distance and online courses” (p. 32), and the reduction of
student funding may be a reason for this issue.
In addition to the funding a school may receive for individual students enrolled in online
courses, it is also important to reference the funding requirements for online programs. For
example, the Funding Manual for School Authorities 2018/19 stated that:
Online Program
An education program offered by a school authority and delivered electronically to a
student under the instruction and supervision of a certificated teacher of a board or
accredited funded private school. The planning and implementation of instruction as well
as the assessment of student learning in relation to the outcomes from the Alberta
programs of study, is the responsibility of Alberta certificated teachers employed by the
school authority. For full student funding, elementary and junior high students must have
access to 950 hours of instruction and senior high students must have access to 1000
hours of instruction. ECS children cannot be enrolled in online programs. (p. 166)
!
!
8
This provision establishes requirements that school authorities must meet for their online
learning program to be eligible for funding.
Finally, within the Alberta context it is important to reference the funding allocated to the
Alberta Distance Learning Centre (ADLC) and the Centre francophone d’éducation à distance
(CFÉD). At present, ADLC is funded through a “service agreement with Alberta Education with
secured funding based on a fixed number of teachers to offer distance education services,” which
allows “administrators at ADLC the ability to predict staffing and service levels they will offer to
students in the province well in advance of a new school year” (LaBonte & Barbour, 2017, p.
12). Conversely, CFÉD is funded through a conditional grant from Alberta Education, which
means “unless the conditions are met to the satisfaction of the funder… the funding is not
guaranteed” (p. 12). In addition, the Funding Manual for School Authorities 2018/19
specifically states that “courses taken through the ADLC are funded at 44 per cent of the
respective tier rate” (p. 104). What this means is that “instead of 100% of CEU funding flowing
to school authorities using ADLC services for secondary courses with funding for ADLC at 56%
of CEU funding levels, 44% CEU funding flowed to school authorities with 56% continuing to
ADLC” (Schmidt & Carbol Consulting Group Inc., 2014, p. 19). However, there is no such
language in the Funding Manual for School Authorities 2018/19 related to CFÉD, which must
rely upon informal agreements with the four Alberta Francophone boards to access any CEU
funding (personal communication, J. Mongrain, September 17, 2018).
Manitoba
In addition to differentiation of FTE or CEU funding, there are also other models that are
used to fund and resource distributed learning across Canada. According to Barbour and
LaBonte (2017)
For the most part, distance and learning options are funded in a manner similar to brick-
and-mortar education with a few exceptions. Students enrolled in the [Independent Study
Option] ISO are required to pay for each course registration, although for students
attending a school within Manitoba it is at the school’s discretion whether the fees are
reimbursed in full, in part, or not at all. There is a fee per seat that is collected for the
[Teacher Mediated Option] TMO, and the consortium that operates this option has
established a fee structure for both members and non-members. Finally, the InformNet
Virtual Collegiate has established a fee structure that depends on the student’s residency
and status. Students that reside within the governing school divisions are not charged
fees, but students from outside of the school division – as well as homeschooling students
and adult learners – are charged fees. (p. 28)
As a reminder, there are several different distance education options provided by Manitoba
Education and Training.
The Independent Study Option (ISO) provides the school-age and adult learners to access
a wide range of print-based distance learning courses from grades 8 to 12 that were developed by
the Ministry (Barbour, 2009). Learners complete courses independently and at their own pace
while having some access to a tutor/marker. The ISO fee structure is as follows:
!
!
9
• $170 a ½ credit course for residents
• $225 a 1 credit course for residents
• $250 a ½ credit course for non-residents
• $500 a 1 credit course for non-residents (personal communication, S. Magee,
September 17, 2018)
In most cases non-resident students take the form of students with parents overseas.
The Teacher Mediated Option (TMO) use the print-based distance learning courses
supplemented with audio teleconference classes hosted by an instructor for grades 9 through 12
students attending a school or an adult learning centre (Barbour, 2009). The TMO fee structure
is as follows:
• Member: $630 for a 1 credit course
• Non-member: $710 for a 1 credit course
• plus course material fee of $80.00 plus GST (personal communication, M.
Klassen, September 17, 2018)
The TMO is currently operated by a consortium of participating school divisions under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the consortium members and Manitoba
Education.
The Web-Based Course (WBC) Option or online courses developed by the Ministry and
offered using a Ministry-funded learning management system (Barbour, 2009). The WBC
option is free for teachers to use with their students (personal communication, S. Magee,
September 17, 2018). In recent years, Manitoba Education and Training has also entered into a
MOU with two entities within the province to provide virtual collegiate services (i.e., the
Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre and the Pembina Trails and St. James-
Assiniboia School Divisions) – similar to a province-wide online school (Barbour & LaBonte,
2016). At present, the program operated by the Pembina Trails and St. James-Assiniboia School
Divisions (i.e., InformNet Virtual Collegiate) has the following fee structure:
• $500 for a course (for students outside of St. James-Assiniboia and Pembina
Trails School Divisions)
• $200 for a summer school course (personal communication, S. Magee, September
17, 2018)
There was no information available on any fee structure for the Wapaskwa Virtual Collegiate
operated by the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre.
Ontario
While the multiple funding models for distance education in Manitoba are due to the
different types of distance education available in that province, the combination of Ministry
resources and fee structure is also common in other provinces. LaBonte and Barbour (2018)
!
!
10
wrote that in Ontario the “Ministry of Education – through e-Learning Ontario3 – provides digital
course content for complete courses, as well as a learning management system to deliver that
content to students on, for district-based e-learning programs for both Anglophone and
Francophone students” (p. 607). In addition to online course content and a learning management
system, the Ministry also provides funding for a Technology Enabled Learning and Teaching
Contact in each school board that is responsible for assisting teachers, schools, and the school
board in using the Ministry’s resources for both online and blended learning (Barbour &
LaBonte, 2017). Within this environment school boards maintain their own e-learning programs
using these Ministry resources to provide opportunities for their own students. If the board
wishes to enroll students from other boards in their own e-learning program, the sending board
should transfer a fee of $769 per credit course to the receiving board.4
Saskatchewan
The main difference between the funding mechanism in Saskatchewan, and what is
described above for Ontario, is the resources provided by the Ministry of Education. In 2009,
the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education completed the devolution of distance learning services
from the Ministry to the school division (Barbour, 2009). Beginning with the 2009-10 school
year, there were two years of bridge funding provided by the Ministry for school divisions to
develop their own distance learning capacity, which has since ceased. The intent of this bridge
funding was to allow school divisions the necessary initial investment for online course
development and teacher professional development, which would allow them to offer their own
distance learning program. Since the end of that bridge funding, the Ministry has not provided
funding for distance learning enrolments (i.e., distance learning enrolments are funded at the
school division level the same way a brick-and-mortar enrolment is funded). Based on
information obtained from the Saskatchewan Distance Education and Summer School Courses
Repository, most school divisions charge a fee of $400 to $500 per distance education course and
$100 for summer school course to students from school divisions other than the provider (i.e., a
student from Regina who enrols in a distance learning course from the Sun West School
Division’s Distance Learning Centre).5
Rest of Canada
Similar to the Manitoba and Ontario models, there are several other jurisdictions where
the Ministry of Education provides direct resourcing for distributed learning programs.
However, these remaining jurisdictions do not charge any fee to access their distributed learning
programs. For example, prior to being devolved to the Newfoundland and Labrador English
School District, the provincial government funded the administration, all teacher and staff
salaries, course development activities, Internet/network connectivity costs for schools, K-12
technology integration for the provincial K-12 school system in support of the Centre for
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/elearning/
4 It should be noted that in Ontario there are “three consortia… formed to support the equitable access to e-learning
courses and services across their member school boards while avoiding the duplication of efforts” (LaBonte &
Barbour, 2018, p. 609). Boards that participate in these consortia general waive the course fee for other boards that
participate in the same consortium.
5 See https://www.skdistancelearning.ca/ to view the Saskatchewan Distance Education and Summer School
Courses Repository.
!
!
11
Distance Learning and Innovation (i.e., the province-wide online learning program). Similar
processes existed in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where online distance learning programs
are operated as units within or funded by the Ministries of Education and Early Childhood
Development. In fact, the remainder of provinces and territories – as well as those distributed
learning programs that fall under federal jurisdiction – are funded and resourced in the same
manner, with no differentiation to traditional brick-and-mortar students.
Existing Literature into Distributed Learning Funding
The general literature related to the funding of distributed learning is quite scarce, and
almost exclusively about K-12 online learning in the United States. One of the first
examinations of funding of supplemental K-12 online learning (i.e., those that serve students
attending a brick-and-mortar school, but enrolled in one or more online courses) in the literature
was conducted on the Florida Virtual School (FLVS). At the time the FLVS was funded based
upon the student enrollment, similar to a traditional school district in the state, where the FLVS
received 0.0834 of the FTE for each half-credit; six full credits per semester generated full-time
funding (similar to the model used in British Columbia, just with different funding amounts).
The only difference between the FLVS and a traditional public school district was that the FLVS
only received the funding if the student successfully completed the course. The Florida
TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability (2007) conducted an audit of
the cost effectiveness of the FLVS. The auditors concluded that it was $284 more cost effective
in 2003-04, and $1048 more cost effective in 2006-07. Research conducted by Barbour (2012b)
found that most supplemental K-12 online learning programs were funded, at that time, using a
combination of state government block grants and per course enrollments fees that ranged from
$100 to $500 per course. In most cases, the brick-and-mortar school or school district that the
student attended paid for these fees (similar to the model used in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and
many of the Manitoba options).
However, it is important to note that the majority of this literature is focused on the
funding of full-time online learning, specifically cyber charter schools (i.e., public schools
created based on a written contract or charter, which are free of many of the regulations imposed
on traditional public schools). For example, Patrick, Myers, Silverstein, Brown, and Watson
(2015) described the amount of funding that full-time online schools received, the proportion that
amount represented in comparison to brick-and-mortar charter schools, the proportion that
amount represented in comparison to traditional brick-and-mortar schools, and the average
amount of funding traditional brick-and-mortar students received (see Table 3).
!
!
12
Table 3.
Funding of online schools compared to traditional schools in select states
State
2012-13 fully
online school
FTE funding
Online school
funding compared
to funding for
brick-and-mortar
charter schools
Online school funding
as a percentage of
average state funding
for traditional brick-
and-mortar schools
Average per pupil
spending in
traditional schools
across the state
Arizona
$5,759
95%
72%
$7,968
California
$6,468
100%
70%
$9,300
Colorado
$6,462
92%
72%
$8,926
Florida
$5,182
81%
81%
$6,393
Georgia
$4,334
100%
46%
$9,432
Indiana
$5,245
87.5%
55%
$9,479
Iowa
$6,001
100%
62%
$9,748
Kansas
$4,030
100%
40%
$9,972
Louisiana
$8,395
100%
90%
$10,701
Minnesota
$8,807
100%
100%
$8,807
Nevada
$6,700
100%
80%
$8,376
Ohio
$5,745
92%
51%
$11,224
Oregon
$6,304
100%
68%
$9,268
Pennsylvania
$8,992
100%
71%
$12,729
Wisconsin
$6,445
100%
56%
$11,453
Wyoming
$6,500
100%
43%
$15,232
Proponents of cyber charter schooling have long argued that it should be funded at equal levels
to brick-and-mortar education (Anderson, Augenblick, DeCescre, & Conrad, 2006; Hausner,
2004; Watson & Gemin, 2009).
In terms of the actual costs of cyber charter schooling, almost all the evidence has found
that full-time online learning costs less than traditional brick-and-mortar instruction. The actual
amount less has varied based on the literature. For example, the Ohio Legislative Committee on
Education Oversight (2005) reported that the actual cost of the five existing cyber charter schools
in the state were able to operate with 65% of the funding provided to traditional public brick-
and-mortar schools. Similarly, Dodd (2010) reported a cyber charter school was able to meet
Annual Yearly Progress with 65% of the funding provided to traditional schools, Gillis (2010)
found another cyber charter school was able to operate at 65% of traditional funding. However,
Barbour (2012b) concluded that it only cost between 7% to 16% less to operate one district-
based full-time online learning program compared with a traditional school classroom-based
program. It is interesting to note the difference in the pattern between the literature on funding
cyber charter schools, all of which were operated by educational management organizations
(EMO), and a district-operated cyber charter school. Many have suggested that the fiscal
efficiency found in this literature is due to the fact that most of these EMOs are private, for profit
corporations (Molnar, Huerta, Barbour, Miron, Shafer, Gulosino, 2015; Molnar, Rice, Huerta,
Shafer, Barbour, Miron, Gulosino, Horvitz, 2014; Ravitch, 2010, 2013).
!
!
13
It is important for those outside of the American context to understand the role of private
enterprise in public education with respect to K-12 online learning, and the literature around
funding cyber charter schooling (Barbour, 2017). As Horn (2013) indicated, the core business of
these corporate organizations has been running these cyber charter schools. This business model
is based on fiscal efficiency – where operating expenses for a company with 11,000 students is
approximately $7,500/student, but that figure decreased to less than $5,000/student when the
company grows to an overall enrollment of 100,000 students. Ironically, even the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute, a strong proponent of cyber charter schools, reported that full-time online
schools were between 51% and 77% of the cost of brick-and-mortar schools (Butler Battaglino,
Haldeman, & Laurans, 2012). Essentially, there is general agreement based on the literature that
in the United States full-time online schooling costs approximately 35% less than traditional
public schooling. However, it is important to underscore that this literature is presented against
the backdrop of a corporate and profit-driven structure that exists in the United States online
learning context. Unfortunately, beyond the Canadian examples presented above, the American
context is the only example available.
Summary
This examination of distributed learning funding models across the Canadian landscape
revealed three funding patterns.
1. Direct government funding and/or resourcing of distributed learning
opportunities.
2. A fee structure for students who enroll on a per course basis.
3. Direct funding through FTEs/CEUs.
In many of the examples described above, the individual jurisdiction actually made use of some
combination of two of these three patterns. Additionally, those Canadian jurisdictions that did
fund distributed learning through FTEs/CEUs provided less funding for distributed learning
enrollments compared to traditional brick-and-mortar enrollments.
The larger body of literature, all of which focused on the United States, revealed two of
these three funding models for distributed learning: a fee structure for students who enroll on a
per course basis, and direct funding through FTEs/CEUs. Similar to the Canadian experience,
most jurisdictions that utilized a direct funding through FTEs/CEUs model also provided less
funding for distributed learning enrollments. However, it should be noted that instances these
US-based where the direct funding through FTEs/CEUs model was used were also instances
where the operator of the distributed learning program was generally a for profit corporation.
There is also the broader issue of whether distributed learning should be funded at
different or lower rates at all. While it appears to be more cost efficient, the literature does not
confirm this. In examining the impact of online education on public education, Fulton and
Kober (2002) wrote:
Less attention is paid to how these changes [i.e., the introduction of distributed learning]
could affect the deeper purposes and principles underlying the… system of public
!
!
14
education—in other words, the expectations and ideals that have shaped the… vision of
public education for more than a century. These include such purposes as preparing
students for life, work, and citizenship, and creating a cohesive society; and such
principles as providing universal access and equity in education, and making schools
responsive to their local community. (p. 1)
Public education is funded by the taxpayers and the taxpaying parents of students who are
enrolled in distributed learning – regardless of jurisdiction – do not receive a discount on the
taxes they pay. The amount of their tax dollars that are allocated to public education is a fixed
amount, regardless of the format that their children receive their education. It is a valid question
to ask if these students who receive an education that may cost less are being provided with less
service for their tax dollar. Additionally, even if a school can provide an equivalent distributed
learning experience at 75% of the FTE provided for face-to-face instruction, the question of how
much better that distributed learning experience could be if it received the full FTE funding has
not been asked. This is not necessarily to argue that distributed learning should be funded at the
same level or in the same manner as brick-and-mortar education, the moral question should be
raised of whether students are disadvantaged by the fact that the form of schooling that they have
chosen – for whatever reason – is funded at a discounted rate.
As Ministries of Education across Canada review and revise funding models in their
jurisdictions, issues of equity and access to effective learning options must be considered. This
summary of funding models across Canada and outside of Canada is only one part of the process
that must be undertaken. The input from the educators responsible for these programs also must
be heard to ensure that contextual elements and restrictions are part of the review processes.
Funding is a critical driver for educational practice. The research community would serve
students and schools well to keep funding models for K-12 education in the forefront of their
work.
!
!
15
References
Alberta Education. (2018). Funding manual for school authorities 2018/19 school year: For
school jurisdictions, accredited funded private schools and private ECS operators with
students/children in ECS to grade 12. Edmonton, AB: Author. Retrieved from
https://education.alberta.ca/media/3739782/2018-19-funding-manual.pdf
Anderson, A., Augenblick, J., DeCescre, D., & Conrad, J. (2006). 20/20 costs and funding of
virtual schools. Atlanta, GA: BellSouth Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.charterschooltools.org/tools/Costs&Funding.pdf
Barbour, M. K. (2009). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Vienna, VA:
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resource/state-of-the-nation-k-12-online-learning-in-canada-2009/
Barbour, M. K. (2010). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Vienna, VA:
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resource/state-of-the-nation-k-12-online-learning-in-canada-2010/
Barbour, M. K. (2011). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Vienna, VA:
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resource/state-of-the-nation-k-12-online-learning-in-canada-2011/
Barbour, M. K. (2012a). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Victoria,
BC/Vienna, VA: Open School BC/International Council for K-12 Online Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.openschool.bc.ca/pdfs/iNACOL_CanadaStudy_2012.pdf
Barbour, M. K. (2012b). Point: Virtual schools are more cost-effective compared to traditional,
brick-and-mortar schools. In K. P. Brady (Ed.), Technology in Schools: Debating Issues
in American Education (pp. 84-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barbour, M. K. (2013). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Victoria, BC: Open
School BC. Retrieved from http://www.openschool.bc.ca/pdfs/state_of_nation-2013.pdf
Barbour, M. K. (2017). K-12 online learning and school choice: Growth and expansion in the
absence of evidence. In R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), School Choice: A Handbook
for Researchers, Practitioners, Policy-Makers and Journalists (pp. 421-440). New York:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2014). Abbreviated state of the nation: K-12 online learning in
Canada. Cobble Hill, BC: Canadian E-Learning Network. Retrieved from
http://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2014.pdf
!
!
16
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2015). Abbreviated State of the nation: K-12 e-learning in
Canada. Cobble Hill, BC: Canadian E-Learning Network. Retrieved from
http://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2015.pdf
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2016). State of the nation: K-12 e-learning in Canada. Cobble
Hill, BC: Canadian E-Learning Network. Retrieved from http://k12sotn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/StateNation16.pdf
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2017). State of the nation: K-12 e-learning in Canada. Cobble
Hill, BC: Canadian E-Learning Network. Retrieved from http://k12sotn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/StateNation17.pdf
Barbour, M. K., & Stewart, R. (2008). A snapshot state of the nation study: K-12 online learning
in Canada. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resource/state-of-the-nation-k-12-online-learning-in-canada-2008/
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. (2017). BCTF task force on distributed learning (DL).
Vancouver, BC: Author. Retrieved from https://bctf.ca/IssuesInEducation.aspx?id=47273
Butler Battaglino, T., Haldeman, M., & Laurans, E. (2012). The costs of online learning.
Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20120110-the-costs-of-online-learning_7.pdf
Dodd, (2010, August 19). Cyber charter schools celebrate two state victories, may get more
funds. Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability (2007). Final report:
A comprehensive assessment of Florida Virtual School. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/final-report-a-
comprehensive-assessment.pdf
Fulton, K., & Kober, N. (2002). Preserving principles of public education in an online world.
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. https://www.cep-
dc.org//displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=143
Gillis, L. (2010). Virtual schooling. A webinar presentation to Classroom 2.0. Retrieved from
http://www.stevehargadon.com/2010/02/lisa-gillis-on-virtual-schooling.html
Government of British Columbia. (2014). Distributed learning – Independent schools. Victoria,
BC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-
training/administration/legislation-policy/independent-schools/distributed-learning-
independent-schools
Government of British Columbia. (2017). B.C. education funding model review. Victoria, BC:
Author. Retrieved from
!
!
17
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-
management/k12funding/funding-model-review/education_funding_model_timeline.pdf
Government of British Columbia. (2018a). Finding a better way to support school districts,
student success. Victoria, BC: Author. Retrieved from
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018EDUC0004-000306
Government of British Columbia. (2018b). Terms of reference: Independent review panel for the
K-12 public education funding allocation system review expected results for the period
February 14, 2018 – August 31, 2018. Victoria, BC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-
management/k12funding/funding-model-review/funding-model-review-independent-
terms-of-reference.pdf
Government of British Columbia. (2018c). K-12 public education funding model review.
Victoria, BC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-
training/administration/resource-management/k-12-funding-and-allocation/k-12-public-
education-funding-model-review
Government of British Columbia. (2018d). Independent review panel – Report out on what we
heard from school districts. Victoria, BC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-
management/k12funding/funding-model-review/stakeholder-perspectives-and-
reports/independent_review_panel_what_we_heard.pdf
Hausner, L. (2004). Estimated cost of operating a cyberschool in Colorado. Denver, CO:
Donnell-Kay Foundation.
Horn, M. B., & Stalker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jamison, J., & Barbour, M. K. (2018, April). Direction of distributed learning in BC: A BCTF
perspective. A presentation at the British Columbia Digital Learning Conference,
Richmond, BC.
LaBonte, R. (2005). Leadership and educational technologies: Leading the charge for e-learning
in British Columbia schools. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Retrieved
from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0055629
LaBonte, R., & Barbour, M. K. (2018). An overview of elearning organizations and practices in
Canada. In K. Kennedy & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and
blended learning (2nd ed., pp. 601-616). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Retrieved from
https://figshare.com/articles/Handbook_of_Research_on_K-
12_Online_and_Blended_Learning_Second_Edition_/6686813
!
!
18
Molnar, A. (Ed.); Huerta, L., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., Shafer, S. R., Gulosino, C. (2015).
Virtual schools in the U.S. 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2015
Molnar, A. (Ed.); Rice, J. K., Huerta, L., Shafer, S. R., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., Gulosino, C,
Horvitz, B. (2014). Virtual schools in the U.S. 2014: Politics, performance, policy, and
research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2014
Ohio Legislative Committee on Education Oversight. (2005). The operating costs of Ohio’s
eCommunity schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
Patrick, S., Myers, J., Silverstein, J., Brown, A., & Watson, J. (2015). Performance-based
funding & online learning: Maximizing resources for student success. Vienna, VA:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/performance-based-funding-
online-learning-maximizing-resources-for-student-success/
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Schmidt & Carbol Consulting Group Inc. (2014). Alberta distance education review – Final
report summary / New directions for distance education: Toward flexible learning.
Victoria, BC: Author.
Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2009). Promising practices in online learning: Policy and funding
frameworks for online learning. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online
Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/funding-
and-policy-frameworks-for-online-learning.pdf !
Winkelmans, T. (2011). Distributed learning funding in British Columbia. In M. K. Barbour,
State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada (pp. 25-27). Vienna, VA:
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://k12sotn.ca/papers/distributed-learning-funding-in-british-columbia/
Winkelmans, T., Anderson, B., & Barbour, M. K. (2010). Distributed learning in British
Columbia: A journey from correspondence to online delivery. Journal of Open, Flexible
and Distance Learning, 14(1), 6-28. Retrieved from
http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/29/26
!
!
