Doug Phelps Head of Park Century School 2013 Sanje Ratnavale CoHead of the Cohort School Nat Damon Assistant Head of John Thomas Dye School January 2013 We 3 are NOT o f accreditation ID: 743178
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Minefield of Accreditation" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The Minefield of Accreditation
Doug Phelps, Head of Park Century School (2013)
Sanje Ratnavale, Co-Head of the Cohort SchoolNat Damon, Assistant Head of John Thomas Dye SchoolJanuary 2013Slide2
We 3 are
NOT
o
f accreditationSlide3
PresentationWho is driving the Quality DebateiNACOL
Public SchoolsCollegesThe landscapeGranular AnalysisCollaborative ArrangementsGrades
SuggestionsSlide4
Public SchoolsIn the past quality was based on Inputs - Teacher Credentialing
- Standards/Textbook Selection - Seat Metrics -Time metrics -Some outputs
Common Core changing all that-Assessing Learning not summative achievement - Most tests online for all courses (blended, online, class)-Trying to establish accountabilitySlide5
“We believe there is a small window of opportunity to pilot within the field of online and blended learning a set of new
outcomes-based performance metrics for quality that—once adopted and disseminated—would ultimately forge a path for outcomes-based quality assurance in K-12 education at large”. (iNACOL : “Measuring Quality from Inputs to Outcomes” October 2012”)Slide6
BETTER OUTCOMES PARADIGMS?(iNACOL : “Measuring Quality from Inputs to Outcomes
”)Building Blocks data onProficiency- Problem: age, cohort, point in time
Graduation rates Problem: enrollment disincentivesCollege/career readiness Problem: no standardsClosing the achievement gapIndividual student growthFidelity to Student’s academic goals
“Systems of Assessment”
Entry data for growth models
Adaptive assessments
Formative assessments
Summative assessments
B
ased on
Multiple measures of proficiency and student growth
No Age based Cohorts
Individual dataSlide7
Online Learning IssuesA College Perspective- UC Boars
“Sheer volume of “homegrown” teacher-created online courses” UC Boars“
online learning could give students with better access to technology or money to pay for courses an advantage” UC Boars“positive outcomes of online learning have yet to be demonstrated”“the profit motive inherent in many online providers may be at odds with providing
sufficient staffing
”
“ authenticity of
who is submitting key assignments
is not always evident”
Source: Presentation by Monica Lin at CLRN conferenceSlide8
Online Learning Issues
A College Perspective- UC Boars
+ if “Definition of online entities are not always clear-cut” UC Boars,
what do you do?
UC system
A
ccredit
Accredit
Online Course
Online Provider
Shifting the focus from UC “approving providers” to UC approving coursesSlide9
9FROM UC Presentation
The appropriate experts are reviewing online courses:CLRN ensuring quality online deliveryUC ensuring quality “a-g” contentSlide10
10Review of Online Courses(effective 2013-14)
Submit online course to CLRN for review*
Assess the online course against the
iNACOL
Standards for Quality Online Courses and CA content standards
CLRN-certified OR
Self-assessed
Submit online course to UC for “a-g” review
Conduct subject-specific review against UC faculty’s content criteria
Approve course for “a-g”?
Add course to online publisher’s or online school’s “a-g” course list; approval expires in
3 years
STEP 1
STEP 2
*
If not eligible for CLRN review, the online course must be self-assessed by the online publisher or school.
YESSlide11
11Step #1A: CLRN Certification
Online course publishers serving public institutionsPublic online schoolsSlide12
12Step #1B: Self-AssessmentEffective for:
Online course publishers serving only private institutionsPrivate online schoolsAny online courses not aligned with state standards2014-15 school year: Non-online high schools, districts, and programsInstitution conducts self-assessment against
iNACOL Standards for Quality Online CoursesSelf-assessment will be incorporated into the course submission process for UC “a-g” reviewSlide13
What questions arise fromColleges and the Public School actions?Will there be more Clearing Houses around the country?
“State would set up an online course clearinghouse” (iNACOL: Measuring Quality from Inputs to Outputs” P 23)Are schools becoming less accreditable/credible in their online offerings?What do independent school accreditation organizations think?Slide14
The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation UniverseNAIS1400 members
Non-Profits onlyNo consortiaK-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation AgenciesServing Colleges and SchoolsWASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE
etc
Independent SchoolsSlide15
The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation UniverseiNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schoolsfor K-12
NAIS1400 members Non-Profits onlyNo consortiaK-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE
etc
Independent Schools
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Public SchoolsSlide16
The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation UniverseiNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schoolsfor K-12
NAIS1400 members Non-Profits onlyNo consortiaK-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE
etc
Colleges
Independent Schools
Clearing Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Public SchoolsSlide17
The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation UniverseiNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schoolsfor K-12
NAIS1400 members Non-Profits onlyNo consortiaK-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE
etc
Colleges
Independent Schools
Clearing Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Moocs
Public Schools
Council on Higher EducationSlide18
The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation UniverseiNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schoolsfor K-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation AgenciesServing Colleges and SchoolsWASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Public Schools
Supplemental
Protocols
Learning Service Providers
Extensions
Where do Consortia go?
Accreditation organizations with flexible protocolsSlide19
Important Other QuestionsUbiquitously acceptable, should we just go with the iNACOL standards?
- input - “standards” like NAIS - student population - missions
- accountabilityShould we jump on the public school railroad?Slide20
At this stage it looks like…
Outcomes, NOT inputs or even Outputs=
“Quality Control”Not “Quality Assurance”= IS mindsetWorld of Data- ready or not?
Quality Control
Quality AssuranceSlide21
“Schools should consider colleges and universities, for-profit and non-profit organizations, charter schools, and other entities as both potential partners and competitors in this market”.
NAIS Task Force Recommendation
Task
Force,
September 2011Slide22
Partnership with a consortium or a separated program or providerSlide23Slide24Slide25
At JTD, Blended ¼ High School Spanish 1 for 5th GradersNot done for 20 yearsSchedule time required
Need 180 minutes per weekNo Spanish teacher in current facultyMajor demandWhat kind of partnership?
Which provider/content?Who would hire/train the teacher?Who would manage the teacher?
Who would evaluate pacing and progress?
Who would evaluate the teacher?
How would we manage the grade?
How would we fit it in?
Collaborations Raise
Important QuestionsSlide26
Collaborative ArrangementsDegree of EquivalenceIn all cases = Substantive ChangeDegree of burden dependent on partner accreditationSame regional body
prior notificationEquivalent D. of E. bodyPrior approvalSelf-certificationNon Equivalent bodyPrior
approvalProspectusSlide27
None of our Partners have equivalent accreditation!iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schoolsfor K-12
NAIS1400 members Non-Profits onlyNo consortiaK-12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE
etc
Colleges
Independent Schools
Clearing
Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other
states?
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Moocs
Public Schools
Council on Higher Education
Supplemental
Protocols
Learning
Service Providers
ExtensionsSlide28
“…institutions describe collaborative academic arrangements in many different ways, most commonly identifying them as dual or joint educational programs, affiliations, partnerships, consortial agreements, and other similar terms.” SACS/COC s
tates that:Slide29
SACS/COC States “Because the SACS/COC accreditation that has been awarded to a Member (accredited) institution, it is not transferrable to a Partner institution – either in actuality or appearance – SACS/COC reserves the right to prohibit the use of its accreditation to authenticate credit courses or programs offered with organizations not so accredited. Member institutions are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their accreditation and of their education programs when entering into collaborative academic arrangements.”Slide30
Collaborative ArrangementsEnsuring the Quality of the Credits Recorded on Transcripts. SACS/COC1
. Conformity with Core Standards. 2. Effective Assessment and monitoring by academically-qualified persons.
3. Disclosure to constituencies and Transparency4. Agreement on Teaching Methodologies5. Equivalent Quality of Teaching Qualifications6. Processes for assessing Educational outcomes
8. Joint accountability of facultySlide31
Collaborative ArrangementsEnsuring the Quality of the Credits Recorded on Transcripts. Taking a grade as your own
“it must be able to demonstrate that the instruction was accomplished under the Member’s own supervision and included approval of the academic qualifications of each instructor in advance and the regular evaluation of the effectiveness
of each instructor. The Member institution’s approach might include the joint appointment of instructors.” Slide32
As Independent Schools : Adapt 21st century learning modelsBlended, flipped, supplemental learningMaintain accountability channels that ensure school culture / identityReassurance to independent schools is established under an accrediting organizationSlide33
PNAIS (Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools)a. Describe the use of online education and/or distance education at the school. Be specific regarding program development, scope, and number of students involved. Describe how/why these decisions regarding distance education were made.
b. How does the school’s mission inform the development of the online education and/or distance education program?c. How are these courses congruent with the school’s beliefs about how students learn?d. What is the relationship between the online/distance education program and the overall school program and school culture?e. How does the school assess and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of online education and/or distance education at the school?Slide34
PNAIS (Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools)Physical Location or PlaceTop educational opportunities and experiences for elementary and secondary children are grounded in
teacher-student interactions. To this end, we expect schools to have a campus where students are able tofrequently and meaningfully interact with adults and peers.Slide35
What do our accrediting agencies need to do?Fill VacuumMore resources- Our Own Standards?
Feeder Expertise for all Regional Associations like iNACOL or NAIS sponsored or new entityLook at more flexibility in “school models” that can be accredited
Collaborative arrangementsExtensionsConsortia