The BOLD initiative, sponsored by the AJE Project, The AVI CHAI Foundation, and the Kohelet Foundation, is offering grants to existing schools to implement Blended Learning
Schools have until 4pm this coming Tuesday to apply.
I still have a few questions that the BOLD website left unanswered. These are not rhetorical questions that are intended to provoke skepticism. These are genuine questions that if answered satisfactorily could allay some of the skepticism found on this blog & various other media. Perhaps one of our readers can elucidate.
First, "schools have realized overall operating cost reductions of 25% and per pupil cost savings of $1000" What does this mean? Are these two separate cost savings, one per pupil and based on the total operating costs, that can be added up? Why not simply combine them since most operating costs can be calculated per student. If they are one and the same, just two different ways to calculate the same savings, $1,000 seems like a lot less than 25% based on the tuitions of most local schools.
Second, the following are listed as methods used by blended learning to reduce costs:
- Reducing and repurposing existing curricular and text budgets
- Redefining teacher and staff roles and reallocating personnel resources
- Increased class size coupled with greater personalization
- Increased student enrollment fostered by innovative programs and personalized learning
Could we see some specific examples of these methods being used at He'atid or other schools? For item #1 are textbooks really a significant portion of the budget? are they less than technology costs? Doesn't the State partially subsidize them?
Are teachers doubling as administrators or vice versa as point #2 seems to suggest? Are they doing it more than, say, Noam, which has always had administrators teaching a few subjects
For #3 are student teacher ratios significantly different at He'atid or other blended learning schools than they are at traditional schools? Can we get some numbers on that?
For #4 does increased enrollment lead to lower costs per student? What if the building is already at capacity or if more enrollment means you need to expand or move?
Logging you in...
kjp · 622 weeks ago
Yeshiva_Dad 69p · 621 weeks ago
i feel a little weird approaching people with questions with an anonymous name. I can use my real name but them I'm pretty much giving up anonymity. If anyone wants they can copy & paste my questions in an email to AJE or anyone else & let me know how they respond.
Just Saying · 622 weeks ago
Daniel Rosen · 622 weeks ago
1. Much textbook funding comes from boards of education as a part of education money given to school systems. It can not be reallocated.
2. Teachers are trained to do a specific job. Simply claiming that one will redefine teacher roles without providing the necessary training is not going to work. Not every teacher who has a gift for classroom teaching will be effective in another position even with training. This will make the qualified applicant pool even smaller thereby driving salaries higher as the demand for proper candidates will outstrip supply. Already good teachers in certain areas are hard to come by, and that's without expecting them to be something more than they know how to be.
3. Personalization takes time. More students who need to be dealt with in small group or one-on-one conversations will create 2 problems -- other students will be unserved and if they are at a standstill, waiting for a conversation, they will stagnate and possibly disrupt, and curriculum will be limited as the teacher will have to trouble shoot and review individually which takes much more time. Writing conferences with students are invaluable but spending just 2 minutes with each of 20 kids in a homogeneous class eats up the whole period and 2 minutes isn't enough time to get anything done. Trying to keep track of 30 heterogeneously grouped students will be ridiculously hard.
The concept of blended learning is complex and full of many different permutations and incarnations. Before we rush headlong into "change" maybe we should slow down and look to see what we are getting ourselves into and whether it will make much difference.
kjp · 622 weeks ago
Also you need to realize these teachers are trained differently. It isnt just taking teachers used to teaching.
kjp · 622 weeks ago
Daniel Rosen · 622 weeks ago
kjp · 622 weeks ago
kjp · 622 weeks ago
kjp · 622 weeks ago
Daniel Rosen · 622 weeks ago
Teacher99 · 621 weeks ago
When you drink the kool aid, you believe the following as Torah M'Sinai:
1. Heatid is the only model that works
2. Heatid has a superior model to every other educational institution.
3. All other schools are either wastes of money or just ripoffs.
4. You don't understand the financial model because we won't tell you how it works.
Anyone familiar with Bernie Madoff?
Alex · 621 weeks ago
Avi Greengart · 621 weeks ago
2. No. But Heatid parents have seen that some aspects of Heatid's model are superior. I'm impressed with the group learning, which isn't something I see in traditional lecture-led instruction, and in the emphasis on children learning to problem solve for themselves, which also is not emphasized in other schools.
3. Not at all! But other schools are more expensive. And legacy apologists often act like cost doesn't matter. It does.
4. I've been shown the rough outline of the financial model for Heatid and the rough outline of the financial model for a legacy school. Both were based on rational assumptions. Heatid's model does depend on the school having more grades and spreading costs over a larger base, which means it is not operating at break-even in year one. Given how popular it's been in year one, it certainly looks like it is on track, but... stuff happens, and sometimes assumptions need to be adjusted. We'll see how it plays out.
Daniel Rosen · 622 weeks ago
Just Saying · 622 weeks ago
Zoolander · 622 weeks ago
Avi Greengart · 622 weeks ago
1. fewer administrators;
2. fewer resources devoted to students who are slower or faster than average. The lecture/group/PC zones and blended educational model is supposed to work better for these students;
3. a focus on keeping tuition at $9K + inflation. Focus matters. It means containing costs rather than expanding offerings to please donor X, parent Y, or teacher Z. JFS in Staten Island has long shown that this is possible, and several Teaneck schools are now prioritizing this as well and have shown that they can keep their tuition flat using their existing model (though not without tough choices). HeAtid also keeps tuition low by not funding Needs-Based Tuition Grants (aka "scholarships") through tuition. All NBTG funding comes from donations.
Guest 3 · 621 weeks ago
End Welfare · 621 weeks ago
GUEST 3 · 621 weeks ago
Miamial · 621 weeks ago
In addition, since lowering tuition means more people can afford full, your collection rate could increase, so you could lower tuition further.
So saving 15% could easily, depending on markets, result in a 25%-40% tuition reduction.
Which puts you slightly higher the He'atid. Take out the bloated administrative costs of the legacy schools, and you are in the same ball park.
The problem with the school finances is that decisions are NOT made by financial people, so they make no consideration for: if I increase costs $1000/student, and 50% of my kids are "paying what they can afford," I need to increase tuition $2000/student.
Small changes in costs pay BIG dividends for tuition numbers.
Bad info · 621 weeks ago
In Teaneck, tuition collection runs around 80%. If you lower tuition you collect the same amount you collected before. People are asked to pay what they can afford, not a percentage of tuition. Savings 15%, if it was even possible, would not save you much more than 15%. Heatid only has a lower tuition because they raise a very high proportion of fundraising relative to the size of the school. As they grow or this fundraising goes down they will struggle to keep tuition low. The problem is that people who have very little insights into the facts make broad statements throwing around numbers with no grounding reality.