Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SITE 2016 - Cases of Quality: Case Studies of the Approval and Evaluation of K-12 Online and Blended Providers

236 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2016, December). Cases of quality: Case studies of the approval and evaluation of K-12 online and blended providers. A full paper presentation at the annual conference for the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Savannah, GA.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

SITE 2016 - Cases of Quality: Case Studies of the Approval and Evaluation of K-12 Online and Blended Providers

  1. 1. Cases  of  Quality:  Case  Studies  of   the  Approval  and  Evalua8on  of   K-­‐12  Online  and  Blended  Providers   Michael  Barbour  &  Tom  Clark  
  2. 2. •  Growth  in  K-­‐12  online  &  blended  learning  programs   &  enrollments,  in  MI  &  U.S.   •  MI  Legislature  li@s  ban  on  cyber  charters  (PA  227,   2010)   •  Removes  restricKons,  creates  pro-­‐growth  policies   (PA  129,  2012)   •  Growth  is  outpacing  research  on  quality  in  K-­‐12  OLL   Overview  
  3. 3. •  MVU  tasked  to  develop  MVLRI  (PA  201,  2012)   •  Provide  leadership  for  MI  online  &  blended  learning   •  Key  MVLRI  task:  research,  develop,  and  recommend   annually  to  the  department  criteria  by  which  cyber   schools  and  online  course  providers  should  be   monitored  and  evaluated  to  ensure  a  quality   educa7on  for  their  pupils  (p.44).     Overview  
  4. 4. •  Purpose:  To  examine  exis8ng  policies  and  prac8ces   related  to  the  evalua8on  and  approval  of  K-­‐12   online  learning  in  the  U.S.   – RQ1:  How  do  states  evaluate  the  quality  of  online   learning  courses?     – RQ2:  How  do  states  iniKally  evaluate  the  quality  of   online  learning  programs?     – RQ3:  How  do  states  ensure  the  quality  of  online   learning  programs  on  an  on-­‐going  basis?     Methodology  
  5. 5. Six  Dimensions  of  Considera8on   Evalua7on  &  Approval:   Level   Provider  /  Course     Evalua7on  &  Approval:   Timeframe   Front-­‐End/Ongoing   Approval  Requirement   OpKonal  /  Required   Geographic  Reach   MulK-­‐Dist  /  Single  Dist   Modes  of  Instruc7on   Fully  Online  /  Blended   Instruc7on   Full-­‐Kme  /  Supplemental  
  6. 6. •  Georgia   o  Provider  Level  -­‐  All  virtual  instrucKon  programs  must   be  approved  by  DOE   o  Course  Level  -­‐  Established  a  clearinghouse  of  courses   that  the  DOE  reviews  the  course  content  prior  to   including  it   •  Maryland   o  Course  Level  -­‐  Reviewed  either  by  a  team  of  reviewers   at  the  MSDE  or  local  district,  MSDE  also  recognizes   courses  reviewed  and  cerKfied  by  Quality  Ma`ers   Level  of  Evalua8on  and  Approval  
  7. 7. •  California   o  CLRN  Review  Process  -­‐  Provide  online  courses   evaluaKons  with  regard  to  their  alignment  with   Common  Core  or  state  content  standards  and  iNACOL   quality  standards   Approval  Requirements    
  8. 8. •  Washington   o  originally  developed  approval  and  evaluaKon  criteria   in  response  to  mulK-­‐district  providers  and  has   adapted  the  mulK-­‐district  process  to  single-­‐district   providers  with  limited  success   Geographic  Reach  
  9. 9. •  Refers  to  differenKal  approval  and  evaluaKon  procedures   based  on  how  course  content  and  instrucKon  are  delivered   o  A  necessary  pre-­‐condiKon  for  this  dimension  is  a  clear   definiKon  of  online  course/learning  &  blended  course/ learning,  which  specifies  the  delivery,  communicaKon   and  contact  expectaKons  and  sets  a  threshold  for  the   disKncKon  between  online  &  blended   •  Maryland  online  course  review  required  for  all  courses  in  which   80%  of  the  content  &  instruc7on  is  delivered  online   •  Minnesota  requires  provider  approval  in  cases  where  more  than   50%  of  instruc7on  is  delivered  online   Mode  of  Instruc8on  
  10. 10. •  Colorado   o  Only  front-­‐end  approval  a@er  removing  many  of  its   on-­‐going  monitoring  and  reporKng  requirements   o  Authorizers  must  submit  an  applicaKon  detailing   evidence  of  adequate  resources  and  capacity  to   oversee  the  online  program   Evalua8on  &  Approval  Procedures  
  11. 11. •  EducaKon  of  students  parKcipaKng  in  full-­‐Kme   online  programs,  as  opposed  to  taking  1-­‐2  courses   online,  should  be  of  special  concern  to  states   •  EffecKve  processes  for  evaluaKng  the  quality  of   online  programs  are  needed   •  Periodic  external  program  audits  by  dedicated   teams  of  experts  can  play  a  valuable  role  in  ensuring   program  quality,  and  can  provide  a  mechanism  for   starKng  program  shutdown  when  absolutely  needed   Recommenda8ons  
  12. 12. •  Communicate  expected  quality  levels  in  instrucKonal   services,  leadership  pracKces,  and  content   o  Standards  for  K-­‐12  Distributed  Learning  in  BC     o  Standards  for  Digital  Learning  Content  in  BC   •  Each  instrucKonal  pracKce  or  leadership  pracKce   standard  is  a  statement  about  a  high-­‐level   expectaKon  accompanied  by  several  observable   supporKng  evidence  statements  that  provide   guidance  without  being  specific   An  Interna8onal  Model  -­‐  BC  
  13. 13. •  Process  begins  with  a  DL  school’s  internal  review   o  DocumentaKon  supporKng  the  internal  review  is  based   on  the  standards,  research  and  growing  descripKons  of   emerging  pracKce   •  Each  year,  several  DL  schools  are  selected  for  an  external   review   o  Using  primarily  qualitaKve  methodologies,  a  small  team   visits  the  school  to  validate  the  internal  review,  observe   instrucKonal  and  leadership  pracKces   o  The  review  team  leader  prepares  a  report  with  specific   input  from  the  DL  school  principal   An  Interna8onal  Model  -­‐  BC  
  14. 14. •  The  report  serves  as  a  template  for  specific  acKons   within  the  school,  but  also  idenKfies  promising  or   exemplary  pracKces  that  can  be  shared  with  other  DL   schools   •  A@er  several  months,  the  Ministry  of  EducaKon  asks   the  school  to  provide  a  status  report  on  the  external   team’s  recommendaKons   h3p://7nyurl.com/bc-­‐dl-­‐review   An  Interna8onal  Model  -­‐  BC  
  15. 15. An  Interna8onal  Model  -­‐  BC  
  16. 16. •  Some  states  have  sought  to  limit  access  to  full-­‐Kme   online  learning  programs  (and  the  research  evidence   suggests  that  there  is  some  merit  to  this  approach)   •  Rigorous  monitoring  and  performance  requirements   should  allow  states,  over  Kme,  to  ensure  that  full-­‐ Kme  programs  are  of  high  quality.     •  Rigorous  state  requirements  may  also  provide  an   incenKve  for  full-­‐Kme  program  providers  to  move  to   blended  learning  models,  where  it  is  easier  to  achieve   quality  learning  results.     Recommenda8ons  
  17. 17. Thank  you!     Michael  Barbour                  Tom  Clark   MVLRI  Fellow                                              MVLRI  Fellow                 mkbarbour@gmail.com                tom@taconsul7ng.net                                                                      Kristen  DeBruler  &  MVRLI  colleagues                                                                                      kdebruler@mivu.org          

×