Education Week - October 1, 2014 - S12

S12 |
EDUCATION WEEK n
October 1, 2014
Piecing Together a Smart LMS Strategy > www.edweek.org/go/LMS
Q&A: Ed-Tech Leaders' LMS Needs
District technology and
instructional leaders face a
daunting task when trying
to figure out which learning
management system to choose.
But school districts have been
using these systems for years,
and along the way have gained
important insights about avoiding
potential problems, partnering
with vendors, and evaluating what
is and is not working. To identify
lessons learned about selecting and
deploying learning management
systems, Education Week recently
interviewed school leaders from
four districts:
Marty Bray, the
chief technology and
information officer for the
42,000-student Forsyth
County district in Georgia
Marisa Burkhart,
a curriculum and
instruction director for the
9,300-student Consolidated
School District 158 in
Algonquin, Ill.
Michael A. Jamerson, the
director of technology
for the 12,500-student
Bartholomew Consolidated
School Corp. in Columbus,
Ind.
Jason L. Naile, the
coordinator of digital
learning for the
42,000-student Forsyth
County district in Georgia
Kristin M. Whiteaker,
the director of virtual
and blended learning
for the 29,300-student
Spokane public schools in
Washington state
What problems have you encountered
with your learning management
systems?
NAILE: We like to say we had two divorces along the way.
One partner did not match up with our vision, so we had to
part ways with them. The next partner was not able to do
what we wanted to do.
JAMERSON: In some cases, they weren't customizable to
suit our younger students, so [the lms] didn't have the look
and feel that would work for a first or second grader. Or
they weren't customizable to each grade level, so [students]
wouldn't have the support they need across grades as they
grow older.
How many systems did you examine
in your research for a new one,
and what helped you eliminate
many of them?
JAMERSON: Eleven different solutions. We look at everything
in our district through the Universal Design for Learning
lens, so we wanted systems that supported those principles
and guidelines. They were eliminated if they didn't fit those
criteria. Several of them were very sterile-looking, very
word-oriented, very linear. [Universal Design for Learning
provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals,
methods, materials, and assessments that are intended to
work for everyone.]
NAILE: We vetted all the major lmss out there, talked with
district leaders about what they were using, and looked
at some emerging vendors. We chose about 10, then after
individual demo calls, narrowed it down to three and had a
half-day meeting with each of them.
BURKHART: Five or six of the big ones. [One] was complicated
to support. It's free, but not really free because you have to
pay somebody to host it. Or you have to do that yourself,
which we didn't have time to do. A lot of lmss felt like they
were higher-ed solutions that were rebranded for K-12 and
were difficult for teachers to use to create content, but [the
one we chose] was built for K-12, and it felt that way.
What's a lesson learned from
your implementation?
BURKHART: Sometimes teachers think of an lms as the same
as a static website, so they would put all their resources on
a couple of pages. But for students working in an lms, the
idea is more about building an online class and walking
students through the experiences you want them to have.
From a design perspective, it's having more pages with less
on each page.
WHITEAKER: Work with a company that can support you as
you're growing, assist with strategic planning, and when
there's a problem, you know that company will be by your
side to fix it.
What would you like to see in an LMS?
WHITEAKER: I'd like to see single sign-on and to have one
electronic text-management tool for students. I'd like to
see a standards-based grading and reporting option in the
gradebook and a way to have more dashboards/analytics
available for students, teachers, and parents, so it's easier to
see student data.
JAMERSON: We created a list of non-negotiables-elements
that any successful candidate had to have. That list
included support for Universal Design for Learning
principles, for all grades, a variety of instructional settings
and assessment tools, integration with collaboration
tools and the student-information system, support for
rubric-based outcome measurements, and for a variety of
technology platforms.
NAILE: We supplied a wish list of 270 items of the
functionality we wanted. On that list, we wanted to know
what they already had and what they needed to have
developed.
What would you like to see
in an LMS partner?
NAILE: We wanted the ability to send in enhancement
requests and to be sure they would follow through. By the
end of [an introductory] meeting, we were able to determine
whether this was going to happen, by their responses and
body language.
BRAY: It's a partner relationship in that, even though not all
of our requests get folded into our product, they're aware of
our trends, and we're aware of the directions they're going
in. Those lines of communication really do help.
What do you think about the cost of
learning management systems?
NAILE: It had to be "cost neutral"-the same price we were
paying for our former lms. We were looking at this in 2012,
and the economy really hadn't picked up at that time, so
we wouldn't be able to pay more per student than we were
paying at that time.
BRAY: That comes to about $15 per seat [which includes
both the cost of the lms, at $8.50 per seat, and $6.50 per
student for Learning Station, the assessment engine.]
BURKHART: There are lots of free things available, but free
will only get you so far. We really need something that will
give us districtwide control. So we pay about $7 per student
now.
JAMERSON: Price is one of the things that knocked out some
of the solutions. We would like to see it in the range of $4 to
$8. That's a pretty broad range.
How frequently do you conduct
a performance review of your
lms partner?
WHITEAKER: Annually. We do a review of all the other
learning management systems to see what the new
functionality is.
BURKHART: After three years, I think if I said, "Maybe we
should start looking," I'd have to get a bulletproof vest.
The teachers have spent so much time working with their
courses and creating them.
What advice do you have for districts
looking for learning management
systems?
BRAY: It's harder for smaller districts. They don't have the
financial weight. In those cases, it helps if districts can
partner with each other. If the leadership's in place, it will
give them more leverage as a consortium.
BURKHART: For districts just starting out, the shopping part
is difficult. Include the teachers. Some of the teachers and
administrators maybe have not had the experience of using
one, so identify clear goals for what usage expectations are.
A teacher may think, "I want to use an lms in this way in my
classroom," but that may not be what the district goal is.
Also, watch out for your bandwidth. People wanted [the
lms], and that was great. But to have the bandwidth behind
it, to support everybody logging in and using it everyday, it's
something to plan for in terms of your long-term strategy
and support.
JAMERSON: Be very clear on your goals from the start. What
do you want to accomplish with it? What do you need for
your vision of instruction? From that, build a list of nonnegotiables.
Use that as a filter. n
n By Michele Molnar
http://www.edweek.org/go/LMS
Education Week - October 1, 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - October 1, 2014
