DES Consortium

Our DDMS system is up and running! I know some of you would like to take a look at the system and we would be happy to do a short promo on the topic at the May meeting. Norbert would join via Elluminate or Polycom from FSJ.








Great thoughts from Randy and Dan. I know there are equity issues around sharing but I often feel like there are arrangements being made between schools that I know nothing about and would participate in had I known. I wonder if there is some mechanism to discuss these development arrangements that is a bit more transparent? Also, as the future of open school becomes questionable, I think it will be critical for those of us doing paper courses to work together to shore up this dated course content. (AMS)

One of the topics we discussed about future plans for the consortium revolved around curriculum development. Al and I were talking at the end of the meeting about the future of the consortium and our talk revolved around the "elephant in the room" in regards to sharing. It was our opinion that we didn't really share that much in terms of curriculum development and that revolves around many issues, one being the cost to develop courses.

NBCDES is also in the same position as NIDES in terms of costs dealing with the consortium. We cannot afford to maintain the financial arrangement as it presently sits either (for much longer). I also heard that there is a real desire to maintain the consortium relationships, but with less cost.

NBCDES is in the process of developing courses but not necessarily at the same rate as the bigger schools (you have an advantage there due to size). I would be very interested though in switching my dollar contributions in a pool to develop courses with the rest of the consortium. I would also be willing to use some of those fees to pay for past course development costs that other schools have incurred in order to gain access to better courses for my students. If we maintain the trust element in regards to sending potential students to the DE school in their geographical area then we aren't competing for students. With several hundred thousand dollars to play with we could lead the province in course development.

Our contributions could be on a sliding scale. If a smaller school needed access to a larger amount of courses then they could pay more. If larger schools had most of the courses they needed, then their contribution to the curriculum development pool could be less. We could set a basic amount (to maintain staff and other costs) for all schools, then pay into the curriculum pool as needed.

I would also suggest that we book Bill Reid for the winter meeting to do a visioning session with us and then go from there.

One idea (from a rookie) to mull over. I thought we could have some dialogue while the thoughts were fresh. (This idea assumes that SIRS and it's related costs are gone from the picture.)

PS. Hope I didn't tick anyone off. (RP)

Hi everyone,

I echo Randy's sentiment. I think a visioning session with a strong 'business' focus would be a good idea for the fall or winter. Our 'business' is instruction and instruction is facilitated with good curriculum.

DESK will have 20+ online courses this fall. Many are being beta tested with students right now. Four of them are just packaged around LLEARN French and Grant Ashley's Math 12 course but the rest are either 'original' or OSBC courses. While I would like to trade for ones we don't have done yet, I would be happy to send anyone who asks an export from D2L. The focus has been on our core subjects and some higher level academic electives. We won't have any English done by September.

Dan

Secondly…. To the topic at hand…..
in response to the discussion that has begun…. I think that if there were a commitment among us, we have much of what we all need for curriculum in some format or other already, and if not, are working to comply with IRP changes locally ongoing.
With my staffing model as it is, I prefer not to commit central dollars for course development. My teachers are like any teacher in a classroom, they are working…. And using resources. I expect that they will research, change and propose some hours of release time ongoing.
Any central dollars I committed to this are already expended and would be better providing my teachers release time that is timely and coordinated for those who are doing the work and have time. Not all of them do. If I wait a year for a course from the Consortium, my teacher at this end has been working for a year – adapting, changing etc.
We have found that by the time the Consortium or anyone develops a course, we have found an alternative out of necessity, and the NIDES teacher is already committed to the work he or she has done to adapt, and is loathe to change to the centrally developed content coming months after the need. As a matter of survival, teachers are developing.
My staffing formula is very tight. By putting in even .8 of a teacher salary centrally, (65000) I have given 180 days of release time that on our end is about 20 days for each of my teachers who apply to do this type of work. A lot of online work can be done by my teachers in that number of days, and it is the work we need and on the timeline that is needed. We commit about 75 teacher days in summer already. This 180 would be in addition for content review, research, development locally etc.).
Instead, our 9 schools should be bartering courses that exist, sharing what we will. Listing out what work we are doing just to create some professional alliances among staff who are pursuing similar work.

If a school has invested heavily into an original course, perhaps they should develop a cost and offer to license it to those of us who would use it? In that way, there is a commitment to share or to pay as the case may be.
If a school has wrenched an online course that exists from Open School, then the receiving school has to license the Open School content anyway and essentially the school that has done the wrench would need to donate the efforts to the others with the caveat that the content license must be purchased. Example is Law 12. Dan has offered it out (a D2L course) that is in essence from Open School. When we receive it at NIDES, we will purchase the content license for our learners from OSBC. Thanks Dan.

At NIDES, we have new online Math content 4 – 9 right now and Math 3 is under way for the fall…. This would be an export from D2L, and requires a workbook for each student as well. It lists River Deep as one needed resource, but the River Deep is optional. All learning outcomes are covered without it. The workbook is much cheaper than the modules we were purchasing a year ago.

However, getting it to others takes time. You would get these as is, and without support from us. You would need to import, review, develop some answer keys etc.
Offering this up to 8 others is doable, if it requires only the export time from my staff member responsible. He does not have the time to train your teachers and answer questions and defend the content. He might gladly do an Elluminate session to outline the concepts and tour teachers…. Once, not eight times. In fact, he has moved on to new development projects and Math review and upkeep is now the responsibility of the teacher who puts it in their online classroom.
One issue that comes up time and time again from my teachers is the criticism they perceive from their peers about work that has been shared. Emails that in essence detract from their willingness to share. On the receiving end of our courses, others believe they are offering constructive criticism by contacting the NIDES teacher who developed the content and put it out there asking questions that in essence seem to be critical and imply gaps in the content. Of course there are gaps. This is not a publishing house, but classrooms that are dynamic.
I would suggest that any sharing is without strings like those I have just described. No contact needed, just “as is” exports of content with a school name or info about licensing or purchasing of resources. No listed teacher. No responsibility unless it is indeed a license and support arrangement.

However, if I put in the 65000, and was given it back in the way of this release time without strings, then my teachers would see that the time is coming from a central locale and that sharing is not optional, but expected…… an interesting consideration…. A central budget that comes back 100% but with the only strings being that the time is coming from a central organization. Sharing would be implied in that model! The only commitment would be an annual report and export of online content.
Central shared services once SIRSDE is done does not benefit me with my staffing model and current structure. It may benefit the schools whose size and structure need central savings. In our current model, there is shared services for SIRS and little else. My structure will not change. There is clearly a non marker clause in our teacher contract here now and all work in curriculum, content, delivery are in the hands of the practitioners here and you can imagine that all of them are working to reduce marking with the use of D2L activities. I haven’t given up though. If our secondary shrinks to a small school that cannot sustain itself with the teachers that the enrolment can finance, there may be some mutual benefit in changing up the current contract to maintain a few jobs through differentiated staffing rather than abandon the school when it is in fact crucial for students locally in our district and in our region.

There are ways we could work together at no cost where our teachers work ongoing but not in isolation from their provincial peers. Instead, they get on the network and declare the work they are doing. What a concept! The declaration would be a requirement for any new curriculum proposal considered locally of a major nature, (it would not include the day to day teaching activities and lessons that erupt through need that is time sensitive.)
For NIDES, it would need to be more like COOL was… give and receive……. Good, bad,… take it, fix it….. The work we do in meeting together with Ministry etc. can happen without dollars held centrally. I already commit the dollars for our meetings and travel.

Sharing a commitment to blanket the province together…. Each volunteering to take on various roles to communicate and maintain an online community….. The way this Consortium began. There’s my vision for the morning. Thanks for starting the discussion Randy.


Sheila