Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Virtual Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers guidelines for virtual courses after growth in Center for Distance Education enrollments
Summary
Representative Jonas introduced House Bill 1105, asking the House Education Committee to require school districts to adopt policies setting eligibility, timing and supervision rules for district‑paid virtual courses delivered by the North Dakota Center for Distance Education or other virtual providers.
The House Education Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1105, introduced by Representative Jonas, to require school districts to establish policies governing virtual instruction when the district pays for a student’s enrollment in North Dakota Center for Distance Education (NDCDE) or other approved virtual providers.
Representative Jonas said the 2023 legislation that expanded access to virtual courses had produced unintended consequences. He told the committee that students were using open enrollment to move into online courses at varying points in the term, sometimes to avoid an in-person course or teacher, and that districts needed guidelines on enrollment windows, timing limits, eligibility criteria and financial responsibility for failed courses.
Supporters, including principals and superintendents from large and small districts, urged guardrails. Dr. Pam Cronin, principal at Horace High School, said about 50 students from her 750-student school took at least one online course in the fall; roughly 15% of those enrollments had failed by the time she testified, leaving some students off track to graduate. She said the school requires an application and parental sign-off but lacks consistent remedies for repeated noncompletion. Steve Madler, principal at Century High School, presented detailed data showing a recent surge in NDCDE enrollments and higher failure rates than for in-person courses: Madler said his building recorded a 21% failure rate for NDCDE enrollments last year compared with a 3% five‑year average failure rate across all in-person courses. Madler said the average engagement days for students who passed NDCDE courses was roughly 29 days versus 15 days for those who failed, and he described administrative burdens and staffing pressures created by many midterm enrollments and staggered completion timelines.
Dr. Jeff Fosna, superintendent of Bismarck Public Schools, described fiscal effects: Bismarck paid about $292,000 for NDCDE last year and was on track for about $98,000 at the time of testimony, figures he said translated into trade-offs for local services. Levi Bachmeier (West Fargo) and other business managers described similar concerns about budget impact and the difficulty of reconciling point-in-time enrollments with staffing and scheduling.
Opposing amendment language, Doctor Alyssa Martin, state director for the North Dakota Center for Distance Education, urged the committee to remove a specific provision in the draft bill that would permit a district to require a legal guardian to pay for a virtual course if the student fails to earn credit. Martin argued that imposing fees on k–12 families for a failed course would create inequitable financial barriers, particularly for students who rely on virtual learning because of illness, bullying, foster care, homelessness or other obstacles. Martin said NDCDE already enacts multiple operational changes to improve outcomes — including an onboarding course for new virtual students, a dean-of-students monitoring system, academic-integrity safeguards (lockdown exam codes and Turnitin), a shift toward competency-based education and expanded teacher training — and that the center was investing tuition revenue back into staffing, technology and curriculum development.
Martin provided organizational data: NDCDE offers about 307 courses, reported thousands of enrollments and had expanded staff to meet demand (the center reported 104 employees, a growing adjunct pool and significant tuition revenue). She said the center’s review removed low-quality courses, aligned content to state priority standards, and that student and parent surveys place instructional quality and satisfaction above average. Martin said the center opposes the fee-for-failure clause (page 2, subdivision d) as written and would work with the committee if the clause were struck.
Committee members questioned timing rules, graduation impacts and whether local boards could preserve access for courses the district does not offer. Witnesses and school leaders urged policies that preserve student access to courses not offered locally while allowing districts to set eligibility windows, enrollment cutoffs and supervised exam requirements. The committee closed the hearing after receiving support and opposition testimony; no formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript.
