These are the slides from my research-focused job talk at Sacred Heart University in April 2013.

1. What’s Driving K-12 Online
Learning?
Research and Policy Responses
Michael K. Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

2. History of K-12 Online Learning
in the North America

5. National Overview - Activity

6. National Overview - Activity

7. National Overview - Activity

8. What Do We Know?
• “based upon the personal experiences of
those involved in the practice of virtual
schooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
• described the literature as generally falling
into one of two general categories: the
potential benefits of and challenges facing K-
12 online learning (Barbour & Reeves, 2009)

9. What About The Research?
• “a paucity of research exists when
examining high school students enrolled
in virtual schools, and the research base
is smaller still when the population of
students is further narrowed to the
elementary grades”
(Rice, 2006)

10. Analysis of Primary & Secondary Focused Articles
in the Main Distance Education Journals (2005-
10)
Australia Canada New Zealand United States
American Journal of Distance
Education (United States) 8
Distance Education
(Australia) 2 4
Journal of Distance
Education (Canada)
1 4
Journal of Distance Learning
(New Zealand)
.5* 1 .5*
Total 3 4.5* 1 12.5*
* One article had a focus on both Canada and the United States

11. What Does The Research Say?
1. Comparisons of student performance based upon
delivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)
2. Studies examining the qualities and characteristics
of the teaching/learning experience
– characteristics of
– supports provided to
– issues related to isolation of online learners (Rice, 2006)
1 Effectiveness of virtual schooling
2 Student readiness and retention issues (Cavanaugh
et al., 2009)

12. What About That Performance Research?

13. Student Performance
Study Finding
Ballas & Belyk (2000) performance of virtual and classroom students in
Alberta were similar in English and Social Studies
courses, but that classroom students performed
better overall in all other subject areas
Bigbie & McCarroll
(2000)
over half of the students who completed FLVS
courses scored an A in their course and only 7%
received a failing grade
Barker & Wendel
(2001)
students in the six virtual schools in three different
provinces performed no worse than the students
from the three conventional schools
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
FLVS students performed better on a non-
mandatory assessment tool than students from the
traditional classroom
McLeod et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on an assessment
of algebraic understanding than their classroom
counterparts
Barbour & Mulcahy
(2008)
little difference in the overall performance of
students based upon delivery model
Barbour & Mulcahy
(2009a)
no difference in student performance based upon
method of course delivery

14. But Look A Little Closer...

15. Students and Student Performance
Study Sample
Ballas & Belyk
(2000)
participation rate in the assessment among
virtual students ranged from 65% to 75%
compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom-
based students
Bigbie & McCarroll
(2000)
between 25% and 50% of students had
dropped out of their FLVS courses over the
previous two-year period
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
speculated that the virtual school students
who did take the assessment may have been
more academically motivated and naturally
higher achieving students
McLeod et al.
(2005)
results of the student performance were due
to the high dropout rate in virtual school
courses

16. Are We Comparing Apples to Apples?

17. The Students
Study Sample
Kozma et al. (1998) vast majority of VHS students in their courses were
planning to attend a four-year college
Espinoza et al., 1999 VHS courses are predominantly designated as
‘honors,’ and students enrolled are mostly college
bound
Haughey & Muirhead
(1999)
preferred characteristics include the highly
motivated, self-directed, self-disciplined,
independent learner who could read and write well,
and who also had a strong interest in or ability with
technology
Roblyer & Elbaum
(2000)
only students with a high need to control and
structure their own learning may choose distance
formats freely
Clark et al. (2002) IVHS students were highly motivated, high
achieving, self-directed and/or who liked to work
independently
Mills (2003) typical online student was an A or B student
Watkins (2005) 45% of the students who participated in e-learning
opportunities in Michigan were either advanced
placement or academically advanced students

18. Is This Representative of All K-
12 Online Students?

19. Student Reality???
• two courses with the
highest enrollment of
online students in the US
are Algebra I & Algebra II
(Patrick, 2007)
• largest proportion of
growth in K–12 online
learning enrollment is with
full-time cyber schools
(Watson et al., 2008)

20. Student Reality???
• many cyber schools have
a higher percentage of
students classified as
“at-risk” (Klein, 2006)
• at-risk students are as
those who might
otherwise drop out of
traditional schools
(Rapp, Eckes & Plurker,
2006)

21. Literature
indicates K-12
online learning
students are...

22. Reality of most or
a large segment
K-12 online
learning
students?

23. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Colorado – 2006 Online Education
Performance Audit
– “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing
have been lower than scores for students statewide
over the last three years.”
– “The difference in performance between online
students and all students statewide is larger in higher
grades.”
– “Our analysis of Colorado Student Assessment Program
results and repeater, attrition, and dropout rates
indicate that online schools may not be providing
sufficiently for the needs of their students.”

24. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Wisconsin – Legislative Audit of Virtual
Charter Schools (2010)
– “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the
mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Examination were almost always lower than
statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years.”
– “Because of the relative newness of virtual charter
schools and their substantial growth since
inception, readily available information on the
performance of virtual charter school pupils would be
of value to parents, school districts, legislators, and
other policymakers.”

25. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Colorado – iNews Network Investigation
(2011)
– “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a
year. When they do, they’re often further behind
academically then when they started.”
– “Online schools produce three times as many dropouts
as they do graduates. One of every eight online
students drops out of school permanently – a rate four
times the state average.”
– “Online student scores on statewide achievement tests
are consistently 14 to 26 percentage points below state
averages for reading, writing and math over the past
four years.”

26. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Minnesota – 2011 K-12 Online Learning
Legislative Audit
– “Full-time online students dropped out much more
frequently.”
– “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online
students had significantly lower proficiency rates on
the math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates in
reading.”
– “During both years [i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10], full-
time online students enrolled in grades 4 through 8
made about half as much progress in math, on average,
as other students in the same grade.”

27. Including Wider Range of Students
Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and
improving full-time virtual schools. Denver, CO:
National Education Policy Center.
– “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school
company, are falling further behind in reading and math scores
than students in brick-and-mortar schools.”
– “These virtual schools students are also less likely to remain at
their schools for the full year, and the schools have low
graduation rates.”
– “Children who enroll in a K12 Inc. cyberschool, who receive full-
time instruction in front of a computer instead of in a classroom
with a live teacher and other students, are more likely to fall
behind in reading and math. These children are also more likely
to move between schools or leave school altogether – and the
cyberschool is less likely to meet federal education standards.”

28. The Other Side of the Story…
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
When comparing student performance in mathematics, the researchers
found:
• students in the F2F group increased their performance by 1% more than
the online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 5% more
than the F2F group from grades 4 to 6 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% more
than the F2F group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 16% more
than the F2F group from grades 6 to 8 (statistically significant at the
p=0.10 level)

29. The Other Side of the Story…
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
When comparing student performance in literacy, the researchers found:
• students in the F2F group increased their performance by 3% more than
the online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 11% more
than the F2F group from grades 4 to 6 (statistically significant at the
p=0.10 level)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% more
than the F2F group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 7% more
than the F2F group from grades 6 to 8 (not statistically significant)

30. The Other Side of the Story…
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
Online cohorts performed statistically significantly better than
F2F cohorts in 2 of 8 measures!
There were methodological limitations in the sample (all of
which favored the online students):
• the online sample had several of its lowest performing
students removed before they had repeated a grade or had
dropped out over the two-year period.
• the online sample was a more affluent group.
• the online sample had significant fewer minority students.

31. Are More Students Really At-Risk
Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time
virtual schools. Denver, CO: National Education Policy Center.
– “K12 Inc. virtual schools enroll approximately the same percentages of
black students but substantially more white students and fewer
Hispanic students relative to public schools in the states in which the
company operates”
– “39.9% of K12 students qualify for free or reduced lunch, compared
with 47.2% for the same-state comparison group.”
– “K12 virtual schools enroll a slightly smaller proportion of students
with disabilities than schools in their states and in the nation as a whole
(9.4% for K12 schools, 11.5% for same-state comparisons, and 13.1% in
the nation).”
– “Students classified as English language learners are significantly
under-represented in K12 schools; on average the K12 schools enroll
0.3% ELL students compared with 13.8% in the same-state comparison
group and 9.6% in the nation.”

32. Is Research Really Guiding Us?

33. 33

34. Digital Learning Now
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

35. Digital Learning Now
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

36. Or Is This More Random?

39. What’s Really Driving this Growth??

40. The Challenge
Whether online
learning can
be suitable for
all K-12
students?
(Mulcahy, 2002)

41. The Challenge
How do we
create an
environment
where all K-12
students can
be successful
when they learn
online?

42. My Own Research Agenda
• Continuing to examine the
policy and regulation of K-
12 distance education
in Canada
– potentially expanding
that study to New
Zealand
• Examining the preparation
of teachers to design,
delivery & support K-12
online learning

43. My Own Research Agenda
• Working with
individual K-12
online learning
program to help
them to effectively
design, deliver &
support K-12 online
learning

44. My Own Research Agenda
• Countering the
dominant narrative
presented by the
neo-liberal
supporters of K-12
online learning in
the United States
(and elsewhere)

45. Your
Questions
and
Comments

46. Assistant Professor
Wayne State University, USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com