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.

1. Cases
of
Quality:
Case
Studies
of
the
Approval
and
Evalua8on
of
K-­‐12
Online
and
Blended
Providers
Michael
Barbour
&
Tom
Clark

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. • 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. • 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. 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. An
Interna8onal
Model
-­‐
BC

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. Thank
you!
Michael
Barbour
Tom
Clark
MVLRI
Fellow
MVLRI
Fellow
mkbarbour@gmail.com
tom@taconsul7ng.net
Kristen
DeBruler
&
MVRLI
colleagues
kdebruler@mivu.org