Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2016, October). Evaluation and approval constructs for K-12 online and blended courses and providers. A paper presentation at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NV.

1. Evalua&on and Approval
Constructs For K-12 Online and
Blended Courses and Providers
Michael Barbour & Tom Clark

2. Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. A. (2014).
Evalua&on and approval constructs for online and blended
courses and providers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual Learning
Research InsGtute at MVU. Retrieved from hMp://
media.mivu.org/insGtute/pdf/eval_constructs.pdf
Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. A. (2016).
EvaluaGon and approval constructs for online and blended
courses and providers: A naGonal overview. Journal of Applied
EducaGonal and Policy Research, 2(1), 32-47. Retrieved from
hMps://journals.uncc.edu/jaepr/arGcle/view/469
MVLRI Fellows

3. • 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 restricGons, creates pro-growth policies
(PA 129, 2012)
• Growth is outpacing research on quality in K-12 OLL
Overview

4. • 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
educa&on for their pupils (p.44).
Overview

5. • 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 iniGally evaluate the quality of
online learning programs?
– RQ3: How do states ensure the quality of online
learning programs on an on-going basis?
Methodology

6. Six Dimensions of Considera&on
Evalua&on & Approval:
Level
Provider / Course
Evalua&on & Approval:
Timeframe
Front-End/Ongoing
Approval Requirement OpGonal / Required
Geographic Reach MulG-Dist / Single Dist
Modes of Instruc&on Fully Online / Blended
Instruc&on Full-Gme / Supplemental

7. • 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 prescripGve &
opGonal review examples
Findings

8. • RQ2: How do states ini&ally evaluate the quality of
online learning programs?
• 24 states require iniGal approval of F-T providers;
approval process ranges from simple to complex
• 33 states require iniGal approval of F-T programs
(usually as charters)
• Example: GA
Findings

9. • 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 addiGonal
reporGng or audits, beyond standard reporGng
• Examples: AZ, MI
• One state (CO) recently removed ongoing
evaluaGon, now only has iniGal approval
Findings

10. • 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 eliminaGon of input processes not
supported by research or evidence of student
impact
Recommenda&ons

11. • Define blended schools with a significant online
learning component, and track their results
– For example, define blended as 30%-80% of
instrucGonal Gme online
– Track results separately from F-T online (over
80%)
– Track separately from supplemental use in
tradiGonal schools (under 30% online)
Recommenda&ons

12. • Consider adop&ng an intensive state review
process for F-T online schools
– A]er two years of operaGon or on a periodic basis
as funding permits
– BC: good external audit model
– WA: good P-T vs F-T differenGal review model
Recommenda&ons

13. • Adopt a student growth model for K-12 student
performance data analysis
– Provide public online access to comparaGve
analyses of data
– Facilitate comparison of F-T online, blended, and
tradiGonal school results
Recommenda&ons

17. • 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

18. • Adopt processes across states for evidence-based
third party external valida&on of K-12 online
courses and program quality
– Work in collaboraGon with professional
associaGons, associaGons of states, online
learning providers, and post-secondary
insGtuGons
Recommenda&ons

19. Thank you!
Michael Barbour Tom Clark
MVLRI Fellow MVLRI Fellow
mkbarbour@gmail.com tom@taconsulGng.net
Kristen DeBruler & MVRLI colleagues
kdebruler@mivu.org