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.

1. Evalua&on
and
Approval
Constructs
For
K-­‐12
Online
and
Blended
Courses
and
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
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. 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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

16. • 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

17. • 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

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