In our neck of the woods (Victoria BC, Canada) we think of blended learning as a combination of online and face-to-face student-teacher interaction. We do not stipulate where the learning occurs as defined in Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin and Rapp (2011, p. 8-11). Some students work from their brick and mortar schools and come in for extra help with their online teacher: face to face. Some do the bulk of their learning from home, the film studio, their parents’ office, or grandparents’ home. The possible locations for learning are infinite. The key consideration is that students come to Distributed Learning (DL) because the typical brick and mortar school is somehow not meeting their learning needs. The combination of purely online learning with the support afforded from face-to-face tutoring, or learning community building opportunities appears, subjectively speaking to lead to learner success.

      Although standardized vocabulary may be of some use in professional communications and research while addressing the concerns raised by trends, issues and challenges faced in K-12 DL environments, realistically; there will continue to be key differences internationally in how that vocabulary is used. Striving for standardized vocabulary is a similar enterprise to the focus of conversation about technology skills, processes and equitable access that dominates much rhetoric regarding K-12 DL. Funding models hold the solutions to the latter topics, and may be influenced by standardized vocabulary not the discourse of professionals. At least, teaching professionals’ opinion is not likely to be heard in the current political climate of British Columbia under our ministry directed funding models.

        Of deeper and more practicable interest, is research that identifies successful implementation of online pedagogy. Klein’s (2006) recognition that ‘many cyber schools have a higher percentage of students classified as “at-risk”’ (Barbour, p. 8) brings into question the common position that educators should screen students to determine readiness before allowing enrollment in DL. Often, parents commit out of desperation, to school their children themselves when parental values and children’s needs conflict with the traditional system available in brick and mortar schools. When DL is the “last chance,” and all other school options have been exhausted, surely the flexibility inherent in DL may be offered.

     Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler and Schneidmiller (2007) state that student success is predicated on the availability of teachers to work directly with students in K-12 programs (Barbour, 2011, p. 10). Unfortunately, in British Columbia there is insufficient opportunity to work directly with students in a system that allows for an unlimited number of student enrollments per teacher. The method of counting students used in Watson et al. (p. 11), that supplemental programs are based on course enrollment based counts, while the student count of full time programs is based on full time equivalence may provide a rationale for standard staffing formulas in a successful system.

References
Barbour, M. K. (2011). The promise and the reality: Exploring virtual schooling in rural jurisdictions. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 1-20. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7253/is_1_21/ai_n57777315/
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KeepingPace2011-lr.pdf