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
– 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. Outputs Outcomes
Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) and SMARTER
Balanced Assessment
Inputs Consortium (SBAC)
New
Emphasis of
Quality
“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,
Online Course
what do you do? Shifting the focus from UC
“approving providers” to
UC approving courses
UC
system
Online Provider

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

10. Review of Online Courses
(effective 2013-14)
Assess the online course
Submit online
against the iNACOL Standards
STEP 1 course to CLRN
for Quality Online Courses and
for review*
CA content standards
CLRN-certified
OR
Self-assessed
Conduct subject-
Submit online
specific review
STEP 2 course to UC Approve course for “a-g”?
against UC faculty’s
for “a-g” review
content criteria YES
Add course to
online publisher’s or
*If not eligible for CLRN review, the online course must be
online school’s “a-g”
self-assessed by the online publisher or school.
course list; approval
expires in 3 years
10

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

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
– 2014-15 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
12

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 NAIS Approved Regional
members Accreditation Agencies
Non-Profits only CAIS,AISNE etc
No consortia
K-12
Independent Schools

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

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

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

18. The “Quality” Standards/
Accreditation Universe
Fully Online
Federally Approved Regional Schools
Accreditation Agencies Charters,
Serving Colleges and Schools
Stanford
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS LS,K12
Learning
Supplemental
Service Extensions
Protocols iNACOL
Providers
3800+members
with mostly
public schools
Where do Consortia go?
Accreditation organizations with flexible for K-12
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=
1. “Quality Control”
2. Not “Quality Assurance”= IS mindset
3. 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 Online Course
Need for
School Provider
Oversight re:
(Member (Partner
Alignment
School) Institution)

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

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

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
• Prior approval
• Prospectus

27. Council on
None of our Partners have
Moocs
Higher
Education
equivalent accreditation!
Fully Online
Federally Approved Regional Schools
Accreditation Agencies Charters,
Colleges Serving Colleges and Schools
Stanford
WASC,MASC,NEASC,SACS LS,K12
Supplement Learning
al Extensions
Service
Protocols
Clearing Providers
Houses
CLRN,NCAA
Other states?
iNACOL
3800+members
NAIS with mostly
1400 NAIS Approved Regional
public schools
members Accreditation Agencies
for K-12
Non-Profits only CAIS,AISNE etc
No consortia
K-12
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. 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?
1. Fill Vacuum
1. More resources- Our Own Standards?
2. Feeder Expertise for all Regional Associations
like iNACOL or NAIS sponsored or new entity
2. Look at more flexibility in “school models”
that can be accredited
1. Collaborative arrangements
2. Extensions
3. Consortia