Nontraditional methods of instructional delivery at the postsecondary level, such as technology-based distance education course offerings, have been a topic of considerable attention and debate. Research on this topic suggests that distance education course offerings and enrollments have proliferated at postsecondary education institutions within recent years (Lewis, Alexander, and Farris 1997; Lewis et al. 1999; Waits and Lewis 2003). There is also some anecdotal evidence that technology-based education at the elementary and secondary levels enables school districts to expand the range of courses available to their students and may facilitate more flexibility in student schedules and instructional delivery (Wildavsky 2001; Doherty 2002; Kennedy-Manzo 2002; Trotter 2002). To date, however, no nationally representative study has examined technology-based distance education availability, course offerings, and enrollments in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. To address this gap, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education requested the "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students" survey to collect and analyze nationally representative data on technology-based distance education in public elementary and secondary school districts. It provides baseline data, gathered for the 2002–03 12-month school year, on the prevalence of technology-based distance education courses across the nation, as well as estimated enrollments of public elementary and secondary school students in these distance education courses. It also identifies the types of technologies most commonly used for delivering distance education courses. The survey also provides information on districts' reasons for having distance education courses and factors districts report that prevent their expansion of distance education course offerings.
The survey was mailed to public school district superintendents, who were asked to review the questionnaire and determine the person in the district who was best suited to complete it. Suggested respondents were the director of curriculum, the technology coordinator, or the distance education coordinator. Respondents were provided with a definition and description of distance education courses. For this study, distance education courses were defined as credit-granting courses offered to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in the district in which the teacher and students were in different locations. Distance education courses could originate from the respondent's district or from other entities, such as a state virtual school or postsecondary institution. These courses could be delivered via audio, video (live or prerecorded), or internet or other computer technologies. Additionally, the distance education courses could include occasional face-to-face interactions between the teacher and the students. Districts were also instructed to include information about distance education Advanced Placement or college-level courses in which students in their district were enrolled. For purposes of this survey, respondents were instructed to exclude information about supplemental course materials, virtual field trips, online homework, staff professional development, or courses conducted mainly via written correspondence.
The survey asked whether there were any public elementary or secondary school students in the district enrolled in distance education courses. Respondents were instructed to report only about distance education enrollments of students regularly enrolled in the district and to include all distance education courses in which students in the district were enrolled, regardless of where the courses originated. If the respondents indicated that there were public elementary or secondary school students in the district enrolled in distance education courses, they were asked to report the number of schools in their district with students enrolled in distance education courses by instructional level of the school. Respondents were also asked to report the number of distance education course enrollments in schools in their district by instructional level of the school and curriculum area. Other survey items asked which technologies were used as primary modes of instructional delivery for distance education courses, which entities delivered distance education courses, whether any students accessed online distance education courses (and if so, from which locations), and the district's reasons for having distance education courses. Finally, respondents were asked whether their district had any plans to expand their distance education courses, and if so, which factors, if any, might be keeping them from expanding those courses.
This survey was conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). FRSS is designed to administer short, focused, issue-oriented surveys that place minimal burden on respondents and have a quick turnaround from data collection to reporting. Questionnaires for the survey were mailed in fall 2003 to a representative sample of 2,305 public school districts in the 50 states and District of Columbia. The sample was selected from the 2001-02 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) "Local Education Agency Universe Survey" file, which was the most current file available at the time of selection. Data have been weighted to yield national estimates. The sampling frame includes 15,218 public school districts—14,229 regular public school districts and 989 "other education agencies" with at least one charter school. The number of districts in the survey universe decreased to an estimated 15,040 because some of the districts were determined to be ineligible for the FRSS survey during data collection. The unweighted response rate was 94 percent and the weighted response rate was 96 percent.
The primary focus of the report is to present national estimates. In addition, selected survey findings are presented by the following district characteristics:
- district enrollment size (less than 2,500, 2,500 to 9,999, 10,000 or more—referred to as small, medium, and large, respectively);
- metropolitan status (urban, suburban, rural);
- region (Northeast, Southeast, Central, West); and
- poverty concentration (less than 10 percent, 10 to 19 percent, 20 percent or more—referred to as low, medium, and high, respectively).
In general, comparisons by these district characteristics are presented only where significant differences were detected and followed meaningful patterns. It is important to note that many of the district characteristics used for independent analysis may also be related to each other. For example, district enrollment size and metropolitan status are related, with urban districts typically being larger than rural districts. Other relationships between these analysis variables may exist. However, the E.D. TAB focuses on the bivariate relationships between district characteristics and the data gathered in the survey, rather than more complex analyses, to provide descriptive information about technology-based distance education.
All specific statements of comparison made in this report have been tested for statistical significance through t tests and are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or better. However, only selected findings are presented for each topic in the report. Throughout the report, differences that may appear large (particularly those by district characteristics) may not be statistically significant. This may be due to relatively large standard errors surrounding the estimates, particularly among subgroups.
The findings in this report are organized as follows:
- distance education courses for public school students;
- technologies used for delivering distance education courses;
- entities delivering distance education courses;
- reasons for having distance education courses; and
- future expansion of distance education courses.
The survey asked whether there were any public elementary or secondary school students in the district enrolled in distance education courses in 2002–03 (12-month school year). Districts with students enrolled in distance education courses were asked to indicate the number of schools with at least one student enrolled in distance education courses and the number of enrollments in distance education courses of students regularly enrolled in the district.
Prevalence of distance education courses in public school districts
- During the 2002–03 12-month school year, about one-third of public school districts (36 percent) had students in the district enrolled in distance education courses. This represents an estimated 5,500 out of a total of 15,040 public school districts.
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students enrolled in distance education courses (50 vs. 32 and 37 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of districts located in rural areas than in suburban or urban areas indicated that they had students enrolled in distance education courses (46 compared with 28 and 23 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of districts located in the Southeast and Central regions had students enrolled in distance education courses than did districts in the Northeast and West (45 and 46 percent compared with 21 and 32 percent). The proportion of districts with students enrolled in distance education courses was lower in the Northeast than in other regions (21 vs. 32 to 46 percent).
- A smaller proportion of districts with the lowest poverty concentration had students enrolled in distance education courses than did districts with higher concentrations of poverty (33 compared with 42 percent for both districts with medium and high poverty concentration).
Prevalence of distance education courses in public schools
- An estimated 8,200 public schools had students enrolled in distance education courses during the 2002–03 12-month school year. This represents approximately 9 percent of all public schools nationwide.
- Although a greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students enrolled in distance education courses, a greater proportion of schools in small districts had students enrolled in distance education courses than did schools in medium or large districts (15 vs. 6 percent for both medium and large districts). In other words, when small districts do offer distance education, they are more likely to involve a greater proportion of their schools.
- A higher proportion of schools in rural districts than schools in either suburban or urban districts had students enrolled in distance education courses (15 compared to 7 and 5 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of schools in the Central region had students enrolled in distance education courses than did schools in the Northeast (12 vs. 5 percent).
- The percentage of schools with students enrolled in distance education courses varied substantially by the instructional level of the school. Overall, 38 percent of public high schools offered distance education courses, compared with 20 percent of combined or ungraded schools,1 4 percent of middle or junior high schools, and fewer than 1 percent of elementary schools.
- Among all public schools with students enrolled in distance education, 76 percent were high schools, 15 percent were combined or ungraded schools, 7 percent were middle or junior high schools, and 2 percent were elementary schools (figure 1).
Distance education enrollments by instructional level
- In 2002–03, there were an estimated 328,000 enrollments in distance education courses among students regularly enrolled in public school districts.2 If a student was enrolled in multiple courses, districts were instructed to count the student for each course in which he or she was enrolled. Thus, enrollments may include duplicated counts of students.
- Of the total enrollments in distance education courses, 68 percent were in high schools, 29 percent were in combined or ungraded schools, 2 percent were in middle or junior high schools, and 1 percent3 were in elementary schools (figure 2).
Distance education enrollments by curriculum area
- Distance education enrollments in various curricular areas ranged from an estimated 8,200 in general elementary school curriculum and 11,700 in computer science to 74,600 in social studies/social sciences.
- About one-quarter (23 percent) of all enrollments in distance education courses of students regularly enrolled in the districts were in social studies/social sciences, 19 percent were in English/language arts, 15 percent were in mathematics, 12 percent were in natural/physical science, 12 percent were in foreign languages, and 14 percent were in other unspecified curriculum areas. Enrollments in general elementary school curriculum and computer science accounted for the smallest proportions of distance education enrollments (3 and 4 percent, respectively).
- The proportion of students enrolled in foreign language distance education courses was greater for small districts compared to medium or large districts (19 vs. 11 and 6 percent, respectively). Furthermore, the proportion of students enrolled in foreign language distance education courses was greater for rural districts than for suburban or urban districts (22 vs. 10 and 5 percent, respectively).
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of public schools with students enrolled in distance education courses, by instructional level: 2002-03
1Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated 8,210 schools with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002-03.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of enrollments in distance education courses of students regularly enrolled in the districts, by instructional level: 2002-03
1Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation for elementary schools is greater than 50 percent.
2Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated 327,670 enrollments in distance education courses in 2002-03.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.
Advanced placement or college-level courses offered through distance education
- Fifty percent of the districts with students enrolled in distance education courses had students enrolled in Advanced Placement or college-level courses offered through distance education in 2002–03. This represents an estimated 2,700 districts.
- There were an estimated 45,300 enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-level courses offered through distance education in 2002–03. This represents 14 percent of the total enrollments in distance education.
- The proportion of all distance education enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-level distance education courses was greater in small districts compared to medium or large districts (24 vs. 10 and 7 percent, respectively).
- The proportion of all distance education enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-level distance education courses was greater in rural districts compared to urban or suburban districts (27 vs. 4 and 11 percent, respectively). Additionally, suburban districts had a higher proportion (11 percent) of all distance education enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-level distance education courses than urban districts (4 percent).
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked about the types of technologies used as primary modes of instructional delivery for any distance education courses in which students in the district were enrolled. The technologies included internet courses using synchronous (i.e., simultaneous or "real-time") computer-based instruction, internet courses using asynchronous (i.e., not simultaneous) computer-based instruction, two-way interactive video, one-way prerecorded video, and other technologies. Districts were also asked about online distance education courses, including where students were accessing distance education courses, and whether the district provided or paid for specific services (i.e., computer, internet service provider, other) for students accessing online distance education courses from home.
Technologies used as primary modes of instructional delivery
- More districts reported two-way interactive video (55 percent) or internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction (47 percent) than internet courses using synchronous computer-based instruction (21 percent), one-way prerecorded video (16 percent), or some other technology (4 percent) as a primary mode of delivery.4
- In small districts, two-way interactive video was the technology most often cited as a primary instructional delivery mode for distance education courses (60 percent vs. 5 to 42 percent for all remaining technologies). However, in both medium and large districts, internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction was the technology most often cited as a primary delivery mode (60 percent vs. 3 to 44 percent for all remaining technologies in medium districts; 72 percent vs. 6 to 33 percent for all remaining technologies in large districts).
- In both urban and suburban districts, internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction was the technology cited most often as a primary instructional delivery mode for distance education courses (69 percent vs. 3 to 38 percent for all remaining technologies in urban districts; 58 percent vs. 4 to 39 percent for all remaining technologies in suburban districts). However, in rural districts, two-way interactive video was the technology cited most often as a primary delivery mode (64 vs. 5 to 40 percent for all remaining technologies).
- When asked which technology was used to deliver the greatest number of distance education courses, 49 percent of districts selected two-way interactive video, more than any other technology. Thirty-five percent of districts selected internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction, 9 percent selected internet courses using synchronous computer-based instruction, 7 percent selected one-way prerecorded video, and 1 percent selected other technologies (figure 3).
Online distance education courses
- Fifty-nine percent of districts with students enrolled in distance education courses had students enrolled in online distance education courses (i.e., courses delivered over the Internet) in 2002–03.
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students enrolled in online distance education courses (80 vs. 71 and 53 percent, respectively). Medium districts also had a greater proportion of students enrolled in online distance education courses than small districts (71 vs. 53 percent). In addition, a smaller proportion of rural districts than suburban or urban districts had students enrolled in online distance education courses (51 vs. 71 and 74 percent, respectively).
- Of those districts with students enrolled in online distance education courses, 92 percent had students accessing online courses from school, 60 percent had students accessing online courses from home, and 8 percent had students accessing online courses from some other location.5
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students accessing online distance education courses from home (77 vs. 66 and 55 percent, respectively). Furthermore, a greater proportion of medium districts than small districts had students accessing online distance education courses from home (66 vs. 55 percent). In addition, the proportion of rural districts with students accessing online distance education courses from home was less than the proportion of suburban and urban districts with students accessing online courses from home (53 vs. 67 and 78 percent, respectively). No differences were detected in online access from home by poverty concentration.
- Among districts with students accessing online distance education courses from home, 24 percent provided or paid for a computer for all students and 8 percent did so for some students. Additionally, 27 percent provided or paid for the internet service provider for all students and 7 percent did so for some students. Finally, 6 percent provided or paid for some other item (e.g., software programs, phone service for dial-up internet service) for all students and 2 percent did so for some students.
- A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts provided or paid for computers for all students (29 vs. 17 and 11 percent, respectively). Similarly, a greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts provided or paid for an internet service provider for all students (32 vs. 20 and 15 percent, respectively). In addition, the proportion of rural districts that provided or paid for computers for all students was greater than the proportion of suburban or urban districts that provided or paid for computers for all students (33 vs. 16 and 9 percent, respectively).
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of districts reporting that various technologies were used for the greatest number of distance education courses in which students in their district were enrolled: 2002-03
1Two-way interactive video refers to two-way video with two-way audio.
2Asynchronous is not simultaneous, whereas synchronous is defined as simultaneous or "real-time" interaction.
3Other technologies mentioned included teleconferencing, CD-ROM, and other software packages.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated 5,480 districts with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002-03. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked which entities delivered distance education courses to students regularly enrolled in their district. Entities included
- a cyber (i.e., online) charter school in the district;
- other schools in the district;
- their district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district);
- another local school district, or schools in another district, in their state;
- education service agencies within their state (e.g., Board of Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES], Council on Occupational Education [COE], Intermediate Units [IU]), not including the state education agency or local school districts;
- a state virtual school in their state (i.e., state-centralized K-12 courses available through internet- or web-based methods);
- a state virtual school in another state;
- districts or schools in other states (other than state virtual schools);
- a postsecondary institution;
- an independent vendor; and
- other entities.
Districts were also asked whether they delivered distance education courses to students who were not regularly enrolled in their district (e.g., to students from other districts, private school students, or homeschooled students).
Entities delivering courses
- Of those districts with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002–03, about half (48 percent) had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by a postsecondary institution. Thirty-four percent of districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or schools in other districts, within their state. Eighteen percent of districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by education service agencies within their state, 18 percent by a state virtual school within their state, and 18 percent by an independent vendor. Sixteen percent of districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered centrally from their own district. Eight percent of districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district (other than cyber charter schools). The proportion of school districts delivering distance education courses through various other entities ranged from 3 to 4 percent.
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district (28 vs. 15 and 5 percent, respectively). Medium districts also had a greater proportion of students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district than small districts (15 vs. 5 percent). Additionally, a greater proportion of urban districts than either suburban or rural districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district (25 vs. 9 and 6 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or schools in other districts, within their state (39 percent vs. 25 and 13 percent, respectively). Furthermore, a greater proportion of medium districts than large districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or schools in other districts, within their state (25 vs. 13 percent). Additionally, there were more rural districts than either suburban or urban districts that had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or schools in other districts, within their state (40 percent vs. 25 and 20 percent, respectively).
- A smaller proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by a state virtual school in their state (15 vs. 27 percent each, respectively). Additionally, a greater proportion of districts in the Southeast than in other regions had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by a state virtual school in their state (43 vs. 6 to 17 percent).
- A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by postsecondary institutions (54 vs. 30 and 33 percent, respectively). In addition, there was a smaller proportion of urban districts than suburban or rural districts that had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by postsecondary institutions (22 vs. 44 and 53 percent, respectively).
- There was a greater proportion of large districts than small districts with students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by independent vendors (28 vs. 16 percent). Compared to rural districts, both urban and suburban districts had greater proportions of students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by independent vendors (15 vs. 29 and 23 percent, respectively).
Delivery of courses to students not regularly enrolled in the district
- During the 2002–03 12-month school year, about one-fifth (21 percent) of districts that offered distance education delivered courses to students who were not regularly enrolled in the district (e.g., to students from other districts, private school students, or homeschooled students).
- A smaller proportion of districts in the Southeast than in the Northeast or Central regions delivered distance education courses to students not regularly enrolled in the district (13 vs. 29 and 22 percent, respectively).
Districts who reported offering distance education courses were asked how important various reasons were for having distance education courses in the district in 2002–03. Reasons included offering courses not otherwise available at the school, offering Advanced Placement or college-level courses, addressing growing populations and limited space, reducing scheduling conflicts for students, permitting students who failed a course to take it again, meeting the needs of specific groups of students, and generating more district revenues.6
- The reason most frequently cited as very important for having distance education courses in the district was offering courses not otherwise available at the school (80 percent). Other reasons frequently cited as very important were meeting the needs of specific groups of students (59 percent) and offering Advanced Placement or college-level courses (50 percent). Reducing scheduling conflicts for students was mentioned as very important by 23 percent of districts. The remaining reasons were listed as very important by 4 to 17 percent of districts.
- Generating more district revenues as well as addressing growing populations and limited space were rated as not important more often than other reasons for having distance education courses (77 and 72 percent, respectively, vs. 9 to 64 percent).
- A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts rated offering courses not otherwise available at the school as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (93 vs. 86 and 82 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of rural districts than urban or suburban districts considered this to be a somewhat or very important reason for offering distance education courses (95 vs. 79 and 86 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of high-poverty districts than medium- or low-poverty districts rated meeting the needs of specific groups of students as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (88 vs. 79 and 80 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts rated offering Advanced Placement or college-level courses as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (74 vs. 54 and 59 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of rural districts than urban or suburban districts cited this as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (76 vs. 49 and 59 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts cited reducing scheduling conflicts for students as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (70 vs. 52 and 56 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts reported permitting students who failed a course to take it again as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (50 vs. 34 and 30 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of urban districts than suburban or rural districts cited this reason as somewhat or very important for having distance education (47 vs. 33 and 31 percent, respectively).
- A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts rated addressing growing populations and limited space as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (44 vs. 33 and 21 percent, respectively). Furthermore, a smaller proportion of small districts than medium districts rated this as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (21 vs. 33 percent).
- A greater proportion of high-poverty districts than low-poverty districts cited generating more district revenues as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance education (21 vs. 11 percent).
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked whether they planned to expand their distance education courses in the future. Those districts that planned to expand were asked about the extent to which various factors, if any, might be keeping them from expanding distance education courses. The factors included course development and/or purchasing costs; limited technological infrastructure to support distance education; concerns about course quality; restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies; concerns about receiving funding based on student attendance for distance education courses; or some other reason.
- Seventy-two percent of districts with students enrolled in distance education courses planned to expand their distance education courses in the future. No differences were detected by district characteristics in plans to expand distance education courses.
- Costs were cited as a major factor more often than any other factor as preventing districts from expanding their distance education courses. Thirty-six percent of districts that were planning to expand their distance education courses selected course development and/or purchasing costs as a major factor preventing their expansion.
- Fifty-four percent of districts that were planning to expand their distance education courses said restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies were not a factor preventing them from expanding. In addition, districts said the following were not factors preventing them from expanding distance education courses: limited technological infrastructure to support distance education (41 percent), concerns about receiving funding for distance education courses based on student attendance (40 percent), and concerns about course quality (30 percent).
- Among public school districts with plans to expand their distance education courses, approximately two-thirds (68 percent) said course development and/or purchasing costs were a moderate or major factor keeping the district from expanding distance education courses, followed by concerns about course quality (37 percent); concerns about receiving funding for distance education courses based on attendance (36 percent); limited infrastructure to support distance education (33 percent); restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies (17 percent); and some other reason (10 percent) (figure 4).
- A greater proportion of urban districts than rural districts cited restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies as a major or moderate factor preventing expansion of distance education courses (30 vs. 15 percent). Additionally, a greater proportion of urban districts than suburban or rural districts cited receiving funding based on attendance for distance education courses as a major or moderate factor preventing them from expanding (54 vs. 38 and 34 percent, respectively).
- A smaller proportion of districts in the Northeast than in other regions cited receiving funding based on attendance for distance education courses as a major or moderate factor preventing expansion (20 vs. 36 to 43 percent).
Figure 4. Percent of districts indicating that various factors were preventing them from expanding distance education courses to a moderate or major extent: 2002-03
1Other responses mentioned included scheduling conflicts, staffing issues, and lack of need.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated 3,960 districts that indicated they were planning to expand distance education courses.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.
Doherty, K.M. (2002, May 9). Students Speak Out. Education Week. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35florida.h21.
Kennedy-Manzo, K. (2002, May 9). Sizing Up Online Content. Education Week. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35curric.h21.
Lewis, L., Alexander, D., and Farris, E. (1997). Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions (NCES 98-062). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., and Levin, D. (1999). Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000–013). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Snyder, T.D., and Hoffman, C.M. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Trotter, A. (2002, May 9). E-Learning Goes to School. Education Week. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35elearn.h21.
Waits, T., and Lewis, L. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wildavsky, B. (2001, October 15). Want More From High School? usnews.com. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/011015/archive_011072.htm.
1Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
2To put this number into context, NCES reported 47,222,778 students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in fall 2000. It is important to note that distance education enrollments collected in the FRSS survey may include duplicated counts of students (i.e., the number of students enrolled in distance education courses could be smaller than the estimated 328,000 enrollments in distance education courses), while the NCES estimate of 47,222,778 students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools is an unduplicated count (Snyder and Hoffman 2003, p. 51).
3Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation for elementary schools is greater than 50 percent.
4Percentages sum to more than 100 because some districts used different types of technology as primary modes of instructional delivery for different distance education courses.
5Percentages sum to more than 100 because students in districts could access online courses from more than one location.
6Although respondents were able to specify some other reason for having distance education, the only available options for this response were somewhat important and very important. Therefore, these "other" responses are not discussed further.
|
Data source: The NCES Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance
Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students:
2002–03," FRSS 84, 2003 .
For technical information, see the complete report:
Setzer, J.C., and Lewis, L. (2005). Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002–03 (NCES 2005-010). Author affiliations: J.C. Setzer and L. Lewis, Westat. For questions about content, contact Peter Tice. To obtain the complete report (NCES 2005-010), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877-433-7827) or visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch).
|
|
