Kennedy, K., Freidhoff, J., DeBruler, K., Stimson, R., Bruno, J., Borup, J., & Barbour, M. K. (2015, October). Get involved in K-12 online learning research. A workshop presentation at the 21st annual Online Learning Consortium International Conference, Orlando, FL.

1. Michael
K.
Barbour
Sacred
Heart
University
Evalua&on
and
approval
constructs
for
online
and
blended
courses
and
providers

3. • Growth
in
K-­‐12
online
&
blended
learning
programs
&
enrollments,
in
MI
&
U.S.
• MI
Legislature
liEs
ban
on
cyber
charters
(PA
227,
2010)
• Removes
restricMons,
creates
pro-­‐growth
policies
(PA
129,
2012)
• Growth
is
outpacing
research
on
quality
in
K-­‐12
OLL
Overview

4. • MVU
tasked
to
develop
COLRI
(PA
201,
2012)
• Provide
Leadership
for
MI
online
&
blended
learning
• Key
COLRI
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

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
iniMally
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
Evalua7on
&
Approval:
Level
Provider
/
Course
Evalua7on
&
Approval:
Timeframe
Front-­‐End/Ongoing
Approval
Requirement
OpMonal
/
Required
Geographic
Reach
MulM-­‐Dist
/
Single
Dist
Modes
of
Instruc7on
Fully
Online
/
Blended
Instruc7on
Full-­‐Mme
/
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
prescripMve
&
opMonal
review
examples
Findings

8. • RQ2:
How
do
states
ini&ally
evaluate
the
quality
of
online
learning
programs?
• 24
states
require
iniMal
approval
of
F-­‐T
providers;
approval
process
ranges
from
simple
to
complex
• 33
states
require
iniMal
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
addiMonal
reporMng
or
audits,
beyond
standard
reporMng
• Examples:
AZ,
MI
• One
state
(CO)
recently
removed
ongoing
evaluaMon,
now
only
has
iniMal
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
eliminaMon
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
instrucMonal
Mme
online
– Track
results
separately
from
F-­‐T
online
(over
80%)
– Track
separately
from
supplemental
use
in
tradiMonal
schools
(under
30%
online)
Recommenda&ons

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

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

14. Sample

15. Sample

16. Sample

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
collaboraMon
with
professional
associaMons,
associaMons
of
states,
online
learning
providers,
and
post-­‐secondary
insMtuMons
Recommenda&ons

19. Your
Ques&ons
and
Comments

20. Session Evaluations Contest
• Open OLC Conferences Mobile App
• Navigate to session to evaluate
• Click on "Rate this Session“
• Complete Session Evaluation*
(As part of our "green" initiatives, OLC is no longer using paper forms for session
evaluations.)
*Contact information required for contest entry but will not be shared with the presenters.
Winners will be contacted post-conference.
Each session evaluation completed (limited to one per session) = one
contest entry
Five (5) $25 gift cards will be awarded to five (5) individuals
Must submit evals using the OLC Conferences mobile app

21. Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University
mkbarbour@gmail.com
hkp://www.michaelbarbour.com
hkp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com