Ohio ABLE’s Distance
Education Initiative
Phase I-Exploring Distance Education
FY 2003-2005
❑Involvement with Project IDEAL (2003 – 2006)
❑Pilot programs funded to explore distance
❑Access to PD for distance education delivery
❑Data gathering and evaluation
2
Phase II—Expanding Distance
FY 2006—FY 2008
❑Begin Hub/RP model using clock time model
❑Expand distance option to more Ohio ABLE
students within current delivery system
❑Offer distance to ESOL students
3
Hub-Referring Program Model
❑Partnerships established
❑Experienced distance
providers/pilot programs
serve as Hubs
❑DE provided to Hub
students and students
referred by other ABLE
programs (referring
partners)
4
Partnership Roles—Referring Program
❑Counts the student for state/federal reporting
❑Provides orientation and assessment
❑Maintains student information into ABLELink
(through 2013)
❑Communicates student information to Hub
❑Provides supplemental face-to-face
instruction as needed
5
Partnership Roles—Hub
❑Provides orientation to online instruction
❑Provides online instruction and keeps track of
online hours
❑Enters student data into ABLELink (2013+)
❑Reminds student of need for progress &
posttesting
❑Reports at least quarterly to RP on student
progress and instructional hours
6
Distance in Large Urban Programs
❑Cincinnati Schools added to distance
education in FY 2008 to serve its own
students
❑Exploring ways to use distance to deliver
workplace instruction
7
Phase III—2008 - 2014
❑Development of a policy FY 2011
❑Establishing professional development
options
❑DE required in grant application FY 2014
8
Phase IV – where we are now?
❑ Streamlined from multiple Hubs to one statewide Hub (OLRC)
❑ Expansion of delivery options in addition to 16 approved
curricula
❑ Referrals completed by referring partners through online PD
tracking system
❑ Updating required PD options by job role
(administrator/teacher/support staff) and by program model
(RP or program-delivered)
❑ Purchase of statewide licenses for Hub use and some for
program-delivered
❑ Alternative delivery (Moodle and video-based lessons)
9
Ohio ABLE’s Distance Policy
Delivery Options
Hub-referring partner
10
Hybrid
Program-delivered
Distance education models
11
Enrollment and completion
12
Costs
2009-2010
Instruction
Development
Administration
(Hub)
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
156,802.00
94,303.68
125,896.00
100,246.00
94,858.85
85,757.60
35,093.00
36,179.00
37,298.00
38,452.00
62,740.15
57,136.70
Software
104,484.77
7,476.00
7,500.00
35,021.25
67,416.00
48,200.00
Total
$296,379.77 $137,958.68 $170,694.00 $173,719.25 $225,015.00 $191,094.30
Coordination
Support
PD/Training
Data entry
13
2010-2011
Lessons learned
Keys to success:
❑State support of implementation is key
❑Programs need flexibility to support students
❑Distance education is not necessarily better, faster,
or cheaper
❑It may take time to find the right balance
❑Consistent method of reporting based on data
entered instead of a check box
14
Lessons learned (cont.)
❑DE integrated into the program
❑Statewide technology initiative prior set the stage
❑Emphasizing why it’s good for students (digital
literacy, increase instructional hours, expanded
access) trumps all reasons not to do it!
15
Questions?
16
Tim Ponder
Assistant Project Director
Ohio Literacy Resource Center
de@literacy.kent.edu
Donna Albanese
ABLE Program Manager
Ohio Higher Ed
dalbanese@regents.state.oh.us
17