1. The Minefield of Accreditation
Doug Phelps, Head of Park Century School (2013)
Sanje Ratnavale, Co-Head of the Cohort School
Nat Damon, Assistant Head of John Thomas Dye School
January 2013

2. We 3 are
NOT
of accreditation

3. Presentation Who is driving the Quality Debate Granular Analysis
iNACOL
Public Schools
Colleges
The landscape
Granular Analysis
Collaborative Arrangements
Grades
Suggestions

4. Public Schools In 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 accountability

5. Outcomes Outputs Inputs New Emphasis of Quality
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
“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”)

6. BETTER OUTCOMES PARADIGMS?
(iNACOL : “Measuring Quality from Inputs to Outcomes”)
Building Blocks data on
Proficiency- Problem: age, cohort, point in time
Graduation rates Problem: enrollment disincentives
College/career readiness Problem: no standards
Closing the achievement gap
Individual student growth
Fidelity to Student’s academic goals
“Systems of Assessment”
Entry data for growth models
Adaptive assessments
Formative assessments
Summative assessments
Based on
Multiple measures of proficiency and student growth
No Age based Cohorts
Individual data

7. Online Learning Issues A 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 conference

8. Online Learning Issues A College Perspective- UC Boars
+ if “Definition of online entities are not always clear-cut” UC Boars,
what do you do?
Online Course
Accredit
Shifting the focus from UC “approving providers” to UC approving courses
UC system
Accredit
Online Provider

9. CLRN ensuring quality online delivery
FROM UC Presentation
The appropriate experts are reviewing online courses:
CLRN ensuring quality online delivery
UC ensuring quality “a-g” content

10. Review of Online Courses
(effective )
Assess the online course against the iNACOL Standards for Quality Online Courses and CA content standards
Submit online course to CLRN for review*
STEP 1
CLRN-certified OR
Self-assessed
Conduct subject-specific review against UC faculty’s content criteria
Submit online course to UC for “a-g” review
STEP 2
Approve course for “a-g”?
YES
Add course to online publisher’s or online school’s “a-g” course list; approval expires in 3 years
*If not eligible for CLRN review, the online course must be self-assessed by the online publisher or school.

11. Step #1A: CLRN Certification
Online course publishers serving public institutions
Public online schools

12. Step #1B: Self-Assessment
Effective for:
Online course publishers serving only private institutions
Private online schools
Any online courses not aligned with state standards
school year: Non-online high schools, districts, and programs
Institution conducts self-assessment against iNACOL Standards for Quality Online Courses
Self-assessment will be incorporated into the course submission process for UC “a-g” review

13. What questions arise from Colleges 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?

14. The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation Universe
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
NAIS
1400 members Non-Profits only
No consortia
K-12
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE etc
Independent Schools

15. The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation Universe
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schools
for K-12
NAIS
1400 members Non-Profits only
No consortia
K-12
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE etc
Public Schools
Independent Schools

16. The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation Universe
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Colleges
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
Clearing Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schools
for K-12
NAIS
1400 members Non-Profits only
No consortia
K-12
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE etc
Public Schools
Independent Schools

17. The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation Universe
Council on Higher Education
Moocs
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Colleges
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
Clearing Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schools
for K-12
NAIS
1400 members Non-Profits only
No consortia
K-12
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE etc
Public Schools
Independent Schools

18. The “Quality” Standards/ Accreditation Universe
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
Supplemental
Protocols
Learning Service Providers
Extensions
iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schools
for K-12
Where do Consortia go?
Accreditation organizations with flexible protocols
Public Schools

19. Important Other Questions
Ubiquitously acceptable, should we just go with the iNACOL standards?
- input
- “standards” like NAIS
- student population
- missions
- accountability
Should we jump on the public school railroad?

20. At this stage it looks like…
Outcomes, NOT inputs or even Outputs=
“Quality Control”
Not “Quality Assurance”= IS mindset
World of Data- ready or not?
Quality Control
Quality Assurance

21. NAIS Task Force Recommendation
Task Force, September 2011
“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”.

22. Partnership with a consortium or a separated program or provider
Independent School (Member School)
Online Course Provider (Partner Institution)
Need for Oversight re: Alignment

23. Who developed the curriculum?
Who are the teachers?
How are they evaluated?
How do they grade?
Who developed the curriculum?

24. Independent Schools Mores Standards Population Pedagogical Approach
Learning and Teaching Styles
Faculty Composition
Geographical Location
Etc. Etc. Etc

25. Collaborations Raise Important Questions
At JTD, Blended ¼ High School Spanish 1 for 5th Graders
Not done for 20 years
Schedule time required
Need 180 minutes per week
No Spanish teacher in current faculty
Major demand
What 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?

26. Collaborative Arrangements Degree of Equivalence
In all cases = Substantive Change
Degree of burden dependent on partner accreditation
Same regional body
prior notification
Equivalent D. of E. body
Prior approval
Self-certification
Non Equivalent body
Prospectus

27. None of our Partners have equivalent accreditation!
Council on Higher Education
Moocs
Fully Online
Schools
Charters,
Stanford
LS,K12
Colleges
Federally Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
Serving Colleges and Schools
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS
Supplemental
Protocols
Learning Service Providers
Extensions
Clearing Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
iNACOL
3800+members with mostly public schools
for K-12
NAIS
1400 members Non-Profits only
No consortia
K-12
NAIS Approved Regional Accreditation Agencies
CAIS,AISNE etc
Public Schools
Independent Schools

28. SACS/COC states that:
“…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.”

29. 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.”

30. SACS/COC 1. Conformity with Core Standards.
Collaborative Arrangements Ensuring the Quality of the Credits Recorded on Transcripts.
SACS/COC
1. Conformity with Core Standards.
2. Effective Assessment and monitoring by academically-qualified persons.
3. Disclosure to constituencies and Transparency
4. Agreement on Teaching Methodologies
5. Equivalent Quality of Teaching Qualifications
6. Processes for assessing Educational outcomes
8. Joint accountability of faculty

31. Collaborative Arrangements Ensuring 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.”

32. As Independent Schools :
Adapt 21st century learning models
Blended, flipped, supplemental learning
Maintain accountability channels that ensure school culture / identity
Reassurance to independent schools is established under an accrediting organization

33. 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?

34. PNAIS (Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools)
Physical Location or Place
Top 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.

35. What do our accrediting agencies need to do?
Fill Vacuum
More resources- Our Own Standards?
Feeder Expertise for all Regional Associations like iNACOL or NAIS sponsored or new entity
Look at more flexibility in “school models” that can be accredited
Collaborative arrangements
Extensions
Consortia