According to Campaign K-12, Senator Barack Obama told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering today that he would invest $2 billion to close the international “education gap” by 2015—which I think means he’d work to get all kids across the world into schools by that date. The sentiment is fine but the presidential candidate might want to pick up a copy of Clay Christensen’s book before he settles on a policy. He might discover that desperately poor children, particularly those in remote rural areas, could be best served through online learning opportunities. Investing $2 billion in the infrastructure and virtual materials to make that happen might be a smarter move than building thousands of schools and hiring millions of teachers.

If any district is thinking about setting up a career and technical education program for aspiring bike messengers, it should think again. The internet is apparently killing that occupation. Books; bike messengers; youthful, inquiring minds.... What isn’t the internet killing? Outdated public schools, for one. Or isn’t it?

Eduwonk Andy thinks that merit pay is the new vouchers. (Actually now he says “everyone” knows that to be the case.) Not really. Merit pay is more like charters—an issue that is promoted primarily by Republicans (especially at the state level) but which enjoys significant support among reform-minded Democrats. A better analogy is virtual schools, particularly the no-holds-barred, outside-the-system versions, which are openly despised by the teachers unions and increasingly under fire.

I used to work at K12, a company that manages lots of these virtual charter schools around the country, and have been following their “public policy challenges” over the years. Consider this episode from Wisconsin, for example, where the unions led a legal fight to shut down these options. (Thankfully the legislature later forged a compromise to keep them open, after thousands of angry parents turned up the heat.) It’s easy to understand why the unions see this as a high-stakes debate: such schools replace labor (teachers) with capital (technology)—the great fear of organized workers. More specifically, by relying on parents or other guardians to provide much of the instruction, virtual charters are able to put in place much larger teacher-to-student ratios than brick-and-mortar schools can. (On the order of 50:1 instead of 25:1.)

And now it looks like the issue of virtual schools is shaping up to be a point of contention for the 2008 presidential election. (See this excellent Education Week article for the scoop.) The candidates are pretty close on merit pay—but far apart on virtual schools. So Andy, which would you consider to be the “new vouchers” now?

Virtual classes may be morphing into entire virtual schools. What is lost and what is gained? How will virtual education change how we define the school experience? The debate rages today in the pages of the Washington Post and Teacher Magazine.

Now that both presidential campaigns are releasing additional details about their education plans, and their surrogates are yacking it up all over town (and all over the country), the shape of the debate is coming into sharper relief. Some of it is familiar stuff: the Republican candidate wants more school vouchers; the Democratic candidate wants more federal spending. Yawn yawn yawn.

But here’s one interesting development: the debate appears to be transcending Washington’s current focus on schools serving poor children. Think back to 2000, and you’ll recall that both Candidate Bush and Candidate Gore targeted their policies on failing inner-city and rural schools. Partly that’s because disadvantaged communities are the historical focus of the federal government. And partly it was because George Bush wanted to paint himself as a different kind of Republican—a compassionate conservative who cares about poor and black and Hispanic kids.

Fast forward to today, and the conversation is ever-so-subtly different. During the primaries, Barack Obama’s biggest applause lines came when he complained that NCLB was forcing art and music out of the curriculum—worries held first and foremost by middle-class suburban voters. And the most expensive part of John McCain’s education plan is his fund for virtual schools and other online learning—innovations that are taking hold in the leafy suburbs, and that aren’t as well-suited (at least not yet) for distressed communities, relying as they do on parents to provide much of the instruction and oversight. (Yes, this could work for some poor families, but many are working multiple jobs and otherwise dealing with the challenges of poverty.)

In some ways, this is a return to the ’90s, when President Bill Clinton masterfully appealed to suburban voters through his mini-issues like “class size reduction” and “school uniforms.”

What will be really interesting is if the tension between “closing the achievement gap” and boosting our “best and brightest” becomes a focus of the campaign. As uncomfortable as that conversation can be, I believe that it would be good for the country. And with both candidates talking about education issues that suburban voters care about (and what suburban parent doesn’t think his or her child is “gifted”?), it just might happen.

I’ve gotten lots of feedback about my Education Gadfly column on extra-curricular activities; several friends have written gleefully to make the connection between my piece and Randi Weingarten’s big speech last week, particularly its call for schools as community centers. (Checker made that connection in the Gadfly itself.)

That’s all in good fun, and yes, on the surface, it might appear that we’re talking about the same thing. But upon closer inspection, you’ll find that our visions are actually polar opposites. First, here’s Randi:

Can you imagine a federal law that promoted community schools—schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need... and suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical, and counseling clinics, or other services the community needs.

And now me:

Here’s a suggestion: architects designing high schools of the future should skip the classrooms but keep the gym, the auditorium, and other common spaces. In other words, forget the “school” and build a “community center” instead. Kids could learn academics at home and come to the center for all the rest.

Randi’s vision is good old-fashioned paternalism, pure and simple. Because many urban children (the AFT’s primary clientele) come from families in crisis, Randi wants the government, through its public schools, to provide all the support to kids that they aren’t getting from their parents. My vision is something quite different—a prediction that in the future, lots of parents will actually take greater responsibility for their children’s academic development. As online learning becomes ubiquitous and powerful, and as more parents join the “free agent nation” and work for themselves, from home, I believe that plenty of families will discover that they can handle “school” sans schools. But they will still want their kids to participate in sports, theater, clubs, etc.—just as today’s home-schoolers want these opportunities for their own children.

These visions aren’t necessarily contradictory. It may be that poor children from dysfunctional or overstressed families need the services Randi details. And it may be that affluent children from stable, two-parent families will increasingly learn at home. Maybe. Someone call John Edwards; it sounds like the Two Americas aren’t going away anytime soon.

This fall, the Minnesota Center of Online Learning (MCoOL) will expand its offerings to meet growing demand for high-tech, rigorous virtual education. MCoOL is a free Minnesota public school for grades 7-12 like any other, except for the fact that all classes are conducted online. In fact, it has been “recognized for its reputation as the school of choice for Advanced Placement courses, academic rigor, highly experienced teachers, and commitment to individualized attention to help each student succeed,” reports the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch.

There are many forms of alternative education, virtual classes being only one of them. Offering students other ways to learn is a great idea, but only when executed properly. A quick perusal of the MCoOL website reveals that this particular virtual institution seems well done. And since it offers both full time and part time classes, students can even stay at the traditional school they currently attend but take an AP course that is not offered there. For rural students and others whose schools do not have the resources to provide AP courses or interesting electives, online schools are a great alternative.

Don’t try any monkey business, though, since MCoOL makes all its students sign a contract and school work is closely monitored by the staff. To take a look, go here.

The Miami Herald reports that Florida is ready to expand online education. But Education Sector’s Bill Tucker, part of the virtual schools cognoscenti, doesn’t like what he sees.

The Economist has an article about the challenges confronting South Dakota’s rural schools and school districts.

In many of these cases, virtual education could be a solution. Education Sector’s Bill Tucker recently wrote about virtual education, albeit as a catalyst for high-school reform, in The Gadfly.

This week’s Economist contains a special report on “digital nomadism,” the ability to work, and to connect to family or friends, from just about anywhere. When Coburn Ventures, a consulting firm, first started up, its to-do list was as follows: 1) get BlackBerries, 2) start contacting clients, and 3) find office space at some point. Eight months later, the seven-employee firm decided that it didn’t actually need office space; everyone enjoyed the freedom and autonomy of nomadic work.

Twenty years ago, few people would have guessed that businesses could be successfully run without offices. Nonetheless, evermore companies, such as Coburn Ventures, are doing just that.

One can assume that education will go this route, especially private providers that are actively competing against one another for students. Who wouldn’t want their kids to attend a virtual school that saved tons of money on facilities and reinvested those dollars into hiring the best teachers and giving students a lot of personal attention?

Education Sector’s Bill Tucker penned for The Gadfly several weeks ago a nice overview of how virtual education is aiding high-school reform. (Bill based his article on a report he wrote last summer.) Virtual education is expanding, and as it does, it’s taking sundry different shapes. Twenty years from today, will we perhaps have entered an age of educational nomadism?

The Oregonian reports that its state board of education last week gave the green light to “virtual” charter schools in the state, but put them on a “short cord.” Under the “compromise,” such schools will be limited to 100 students per grade, all of whom must ask their home school districts for permission to go virtual. The enrollment cap is a major disappointment. Such a “slow growth” policy might make sense in states without any virtual school experience; getting a foot in the door is a decent political strategy, and creates an opportunity for the schools to prove themselves, demonstrate parental demand via long waiting lists, and build momentum for more flexible state policies. But Oregon is no stranger to virtual education; it is already home to the 1,800 student Connections Academy, which by all accounts is doing well. Another 900-student school, the Oregon Virtual Academy, operated by K12*, was slated to open in the fall. It’s hard to see this cap as anything but a boon to the traditional public school system—and its unions—and a slap in the face to parents looking for a school that fits their child’s needs.

But even worse is the veto power given to local school districts that don’t want their students attending these schools. In an age when the value of “public school choice” is widely agreed upon, I can’t think of any other “inter-district” plan where the “sending” district can block children at the schoolhouse door. Of course this is about money; those districts don’t raise a fuss when students transfer to private schools or home schools because their tax revenue stays within district coffers. The difference is that some local dollars travel with the kids to their new virtual schools. It’s no surprise that the districts want to avoid this fiscal pinch, but the public should cheer, for it might lead the regular public schools to make some virtual offerings of their own.

To be sure, virtual schools, like all public schools, should face quality control mechanisms, especially requirements that they get results in terms of raising student achievement. And it’s fair to debate whether virtual schools need the same amount of funding as regular brick-and-mortar ones. Because of their economies of scale, perhaps their per-pupil allotments should fall as their enrollments rise. But at a time when all states are worried about preparing students for the “innovation economy,” how sad it is that Oregon would put the kibosh on one of the most promising innovations in education today.

* I once worked for K12, though, regrettably, I don’t have any financial stake in the company.