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 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers

249 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2016, December). Evaluation and approval constructs for K-12 online and blended courses and 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 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers

  1. 1. Evalua&on  and  Approval   Constructs  For  K-­‐12  Online  and   Blended  Courses  and  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  exis&ng  policies  and  prac&ces   related  to  the  evalua&on  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  Considera&on   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. •  RQ1:  How  do  states  evaluate  the  quality  of  online   learning  courses?     •  States  typically  focus  either  at  course  or  provider   level   •  Some  do  both  (GA,  for  example)   •  11  states  evaluate  course  quality   •  MD’s  MVLO  and  CA’s  CLRN:  good  prescripKve  &   opKonal  review  examples   Findings  
  7. 7. •  RQ2:  How  do  states  ini&ally  evaluate  the  quality  of   online  learning  programs?     •  24  states  require  iniKal  approval  of  F-­‐T  providers;   approval  process  ranges  from  simple  to  complex   •  33  states  require  iniKal  approval  of  F-­‐T  programs   (usually  as  charters)   •  Example:  GA   Findings  
  8. 8. •  RQ3:  How  do  states  ensure  the  quality  of  online   learning  programs  on  an  on-­‐going  basis?     •  All  states  that  permit  F-­‐T  online  public  schools   require  them  to  report  like  other  public  schools   •  At  least  5  states  require  ongoing  addiKonal   reporKng  or  audits,  beyond  standard  reporKng   •  Examples:  AZ,  MI   •  One  state  (CO)  recently  removed  ongoing   evaluaKon,  now  only  has  iniKal  approval   Findings  
  9. 9. •  Con&nue  input-­‐focused  evalua&on  and  approval   processes  for  F-­‐T  online  schools   – Seek  to  ensure  they  meet  basic  quality  standards   during  development  &  startup   – Consider  eliminaKon  of  input  processes  not   supported  by  research  or  evidence  of  student   impact   Recommenda&ons  
  10. 10. •  Define  blended  schools  with  a  significant  online   learning  component,  and  track  their  results   – For  example,  define  blended  as  30%-­‐80%  of   instrucKonal  Kme  online   – Track  results  separately  from  F-­‐T  online  (over   80%)   – Track  separately  from  supplemental  use  in   tradiKonal  schools  (under  30%  online)     Recommenda&ons  
  11. 11. •  Consider  adop&ng  an  intensive  state  review   process  for  F-­‐T  online  schools   – A@er  two  years  of  operaKon  or  on  a  periodic  basis   as  funding  permits   – BC:  good  external  audit  model   – WA:  good  P-­‐T  vs  F-­‐T  differenKal  review  model   Recommenda&ons  
  12. 12. •  Adopt  a  student  growth  model  for  K-­‐12  student   performance  data  analysis   – Provide  public  online  access  to  comparaKve   analyses  of  data   – Facilitate  comparison  of  F-­‐T  online,  blended,  and   tradiKonal  school  results   Recommenda&ons  
  13. 13. •  Collaborate  ac&vely  with  educa&onal  researchers   to  help  build  the  evidence  base  for  what  works  in   K-­‐12  online  and  blended  learning   Recommenda&ons  
  14. 14. •  Adopt  processes  across  states  for  evidence-­‐based   third  party  external  valida&on  of  K-­‐12  online   courses  and  program  quality   – Work  in  collaboraKon  with  professional   associaKons,  associaKons  of  states,  online   learning  providers,  and  post-­‐secondary   insKtuKons   Recommenda&ons  
  15. 15. Thank  you!     Michael  Barbour                  Tom  Clark   MVLRI  Fellow                                              MVLRI  Fellow                 mkbarbour@gmail.com                tom@taconsul7ng.net                                                                      Kristen  DeBruler  &  MVRLI  colleagues                                                                                      kdebruler@mivu.org          

×