Barbour, M. K. (2015, December). K-12 online learning in Canada: Situating Newfoundland and Labrador in the national context. A Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Education doctoral seminar, St. John's, NL.

1. K-­‐12
Online
Learning
in
Canada:
Situa5ng
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
in
the
Na5onal
Context
Michael
K.
Barbour
Sacred
Heart
University

2. State of the Nation:
K–12 Online Learning in Canada
®
Written by
Michael K. Barbour,
Wayne State University

3. Canadian eLearning Network
http://CANeLearn.net

4. Canadian eLearning Network
• CANeLearn
is
a
pan-­‐Canadian
network
of
K12
online
and
blended
learning
schools
and
organiza=ons
• Focus
is
on
sharing
resources,
PD,
research
• Intent
is
to
leverage
collec=ve
to
promote
online
and
blended
learning
opportuni=es
• hFp://CANeLearn.net

5. Mission
CANeLearn's
mission
is
to
provide
leadership
that
champions
student
success
in
online
and
blended
learning
and
provides
members
with
networking,
collabora=on,
and
research
opportuni=es.

6. http://canelearn.net/state-of-the-nation-k-12-online-learning-in-canada/

8. Methodology

9. Na=onal
Overview
-­‐
Ac=vity

10. Na=onal
Overview
-­‐
Ac=vity
Province/Territory # of K-12
students
# enroled in
distance
education
Percent involvement
NL 67,436 884 1.3%
NS 122,643 ~2,720 2.2%
PE 20,131 108 0.5%
NB 101,079 2615 2.6%
QC 1,307,026 ~70,5000 5.4%
ON 2,015,411 78,095 3.9%
MB 200,807 ~12,000 6.0%
SK 172,205 ~10,000
1
5.8%
AB 616,375 ~75,000 12.2%
BC 635,057 77,912 12.3%
YT 5,122 182 3.5%
NT 8,204 228 2.8%
NU 9,728 33 <0.1%
Federal 106,500 ~1,800 0.1%
Total 5,387,724 332,077 6.2%
!

11. Na=onal
Overview
-­‐
Ac=vity

12. Newfoundland
and
Labrador
• Single
province-­‐wide
online
program
since
2001
– grew
out
of
district-­‐based
ini=a=ves
and
legacy
distance
educa=on
program
• No
specific
policies
for
online
learning,
but
provincial
program
is
housed
within
MoE

13. Nova
Sco=a
• Recent
crea=on
of
a
single
province-­‐wide
program
– grew
out
of
district-­‐based
online
ini=a=ves
• 11
provisions
included
in
the
agreement
between
the
Government
&
teachers
union
– defining
the
work
day,
professional
development
requirements,
program
oversight,
class
size,
&
management
of
the
distance
program
• Provincial
program
is
housed
within
MOE

14. Prince
Edward
Island
• Uses
online
learning
program
in
New
Brunswick
– phased
out
legacy
video
conferencing
program
several
years
ago
• MOE
has
issued
two
direc=ves
since
2001
containing
guidelines
for
the
use
of
distance
educa=on
in
K-­‐12
environment

15. New
Brunswick
• Single
province-­‐wide
program
since
1998
(English
&
French)
– used
frequently
by
face-­‐to-­‐face
teachers
too
• Ministry
has
created
a
100+
page
handbook
that
districts
have
to
agree
to
in
order
to
par=cipate
in
online
learning
• Provincial
program
is
housed
within
MOE

16. Quebec
• Several
individual
online
and
correspondence
programs
that
partner
with
school
districts
– addi=onal
a
couple
of
programs
that
provide
for
connected
classrooms
or
blended
learning
• MOE
devolved
distance
educa=on
to
the
districts
about
a
decade
ago
– currently
no
regula=on

17. Ontario
• Primarily
district-­‐based
program
using
the
provincial
CMS
and
course
content
– coopera=on
between
boards
through
consor=ums
– Growing
number
of
private
schools
– Independent
Learning
Centre
• Ministry
has
created
contracts
that
districts
have
to
agree
to
in
order
to
par=cipate
in
online
learning
based
on
the
Provincial
E-­‐
Learning
Strategy

18. Manitoba
• Province
offers
three
forms
– MOE
manages
correspondence
&
instruc=onal
television
program
– districts
manage
their
own
web-­‐based
program
using
MOE
content
• MOE
approves
programs
and
regulates
the
use
of
their
distance
content
v
virtual
collegiate
pilot
program

19. Saskatchewan
• Primarily
district-­‐based
programs
– most
have
their
own
capacity
in
some
form
– sixteen
districts
provided
space
to
external
students
through
the
Saskatchewan
Distance
Learning
Course
Repository
• Province
devolved
responsibility
to
districts
– no
regula=on

20. Alberta
• ~23
district-­‐based,
several
private,
&
province-­‐
wide
programs
• MOE
has
no
specific
online
learning
policies
– reviewed
distributed
learning
around
2007-­‐09
– released
Inspiring
Ac7on
on
Educa7on
in
2011
– underwent
external
review
of
distance
educa=on
regula=on
&
ac=vity
around
2010-­‐12

21. Bri=sh
Columbia
• 76
programs
– 60
public
district-­‐based
– 16
independent
• Most
extensive
distributed
learning
regula=ons
– funding
follows
student
– quality
audit
process

22. Yukon
• Aurora
Virtual
School,
and
uses
programs
from
Bri=sh
Columbia
&
Alberta
– Watson
Lake
Secondary
School
blended
learning
project
• Primarily
regulated
by
Ministry
or
through
inter-­‐provincial
agreements

23. Northwest
Territories
• Pilot
being
conducted
involving
five
small
community
high
schools
across
three
regional
boards
of
educa=on
– u=lizes
programs
from
Alberta
• Primarily
regulated
by
Ministry
or
through
inter-­‐provincial
agreements

24. Nunavut
• U=lizes
program
from
Alberta
• Primarily
regulated
through
inter-­‐provincial
agreements
– development
of
a
ministerial
direc=ve
regarding
access
to
and
delivery
of
distance
educa=on
has
been
underway
since
2012

25. Federal
Programs
• Sporadic
programs
– two
in
Ontario
(Keeway=nook
Internet
High
School
and
Gai
hon
nya
ni:
the
Amos
Key
Jr.
E~Learning
Ins=tute),
one
in
Manitoba
Wapaskwa
Virtual
Collegiate),
and
one
in
Alberta
(SCcyber
E-­‐learning
Community)
– Credenda
Virtual
High
School
(Saskatchewan)
ceased
opera=ons
following
the
2012-­‐13
school
year
due
to
a
lack
of
funding
• No
longer
enter
into
service
agreements
directly
with
e-­‐learning
programs

26. Trends
-­‐
Growth

27. Trends
-­‐
Growth
Newfoundland & Labrador
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2000-­‐01
(8)
2001-­‐02
(16)
2002-­‐03
(19)
2003-­‐04
(22)
2004-­‐05
(26)
2005-­‐06
(31)
2006-­‐07
(32)
2007-­‐08
(36)
2008-­‐09
(36)
2009-­‐10
(40)
2010-­‐11
(38)
2011-­‐12
(38)
2012-­‐13
(39)
2013-­‐14
(34)
2014-­‐15
(36)

28. Trends
-­‐
Growth
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2006-­‐07
2007-­‐08
2008-­‐09
2009-­‐10
2010-­‐11
2011-­‐12
2012-­‐13
2013-­‐14
British Columbia

29. Trends
–
BeFer
Data
Province/Territory # of K-12
students
# enroled in
distance
education
Percent involvement
NL 67,436 884 1.3%
NS 122,643 ~2,720 2.2%
PE 20,131 108 0.5%
NB 101,079 2615 2.6%
QC 1,307,026 ~70,5000 5.4%
ON 2,015,411 78,095 3.9%
MB 200,807 ~12,000 6.0%
SK 172,205 ~10,000
1
5.8%
AB 616,375 ~75,000 12.2%
BC 635,057 77,912 12.3%
YT 5,122 182 3.5%
NT 8,204 228 2.8%
NU 9,728 33 <0.1%
Federal 106,500 ~1,800 0.1%
Total 5,387,724 332,077 6.2%
!

30. Trends
–
BeFer
Data
1. The
Saskatchewan
Ministry
of
Educa=on
provided
the
figure
of
2,611
students.
However,
based
on
previous
edi=ons
of
this
study,
the
Ministry
figure
onen
represents
between
30%-­‐35%
of
the
total.

31. Trends
–
BeFer
Data
• 26%
response
rate
in
2011
• 14%
response
rate
in
2012
• 21%
response
rate
in
2013

32. Trends
–
Blended
Learning
• more
than
a
third
of
the
enrollments
in
the
New
Brunswick
provincial
learning
management
system
are
from
classroom
teachers
and
students
using
the
content
in
a
blended
fashion
• while
the
Learn
program
in
Quebec
serves
approximately
5,300
students
engaged
in
its
distance
educa=on
program,
it
has
more
than
150,000
enrollments
from
classroom
teachers
and
students
using
asynchronous
course
content
• Bri=sh
Columbia’s
Navigate
Program
in
the
Courtenay/
Comox
school
district
received
iNACOL’s
2014
Innova=ve
Prac=ce
of
the
year
award

33. Trends
–
Suppor=ve
Unions
• NLTA
partnered
with
the
CDLI
to
create
a
Virtual
Teachers
Centre
to
use
the
infrastructure
and
exper=se
of
the
K-­‐12
online
learning
program
to
deliver
online
professional
development
• several
teacher
unions
have
invested
in
research
into
how
teaching
at
a
distance
differs
from
teaching
in
the
classroom,
and
what
impact
that
has
on
the
workload
and
quality
of
life
of
their
members
who
teach
at
a
distance
(e.g.,
ATA
&
BCTF)
• NSTU
has
11
provisions
related
to
distance
educa=on
in
its
contract
that
focus
on
teacher
cer=fica=on,
workload
issues,
defini=on
of
a
school
day
for
DE,
school-­‐based
supervision
and
administra=on
of
DE
students,
DE
class
size,
professional
development,
and
governance
of
DE
programs

34. Trends
–
More
Research
• beyond
a
small
number
of
descrip=ve
and/or
overview
pieces,
there
is
very
liFle
research
• BCTF
-­‐
an
effort
to
understand
what
K-­‐12
distance,
online
and
blended
learning
mean
for
its
members
and
the
nature
of
their
work
life
• MUN
-­‐
two
federally
funded
ini=a=ves:
1. the
Centre
for
TeleLearning
and
Rural
Educa=on
2. the
Killick
Centre
for
E-­‐Learning
Research

35. Because
Research
Is
Important!!!

36. Supplemental
Student
Performance
Literature Finding
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
…over half of students who completed FLVS courses
scored an A in their course & only 7% received a failing
grade.
Cavanaugh (2001) …effect size slightly in favor of K-12 distance education.
Cavanaught et al.
(2004)
…negative effect size for K-12 distance education.
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 algebraic
assessment than their classroom counterparts.
Means et al. (2009) …small effect size favoring online cohorts over face-to-
face cohorts based on limited K-12 studies.
Chingos &
Schwerdt (2014)
FLVS students perform about the same or somewhat
better on state tests once their pre-high-school
characteristics are taken into account.

37. 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
Means et al.
(2009)
Given the small number of studies that addressed
K-12 learners in the meta-analysis, attempts to test
for statistical differences between the mean effect
for K-12 learners and those for other types of
learners should be viewed as merely suggestive

38. Literature Finding
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.”
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.”

39. Literature Finding
CO (2006) “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing have been
lower than scores for students statewide over the last three years.”
OH (2009) …online charter school students experienced significantly lower
achievement gains compared to brick-and-mortar charter schools
in the state.
OH (2009) Online charter schools “rank higher when looking at their ‘value-
added’ progress over one year rather than simply measuring their
one-time testing performance.”
WI (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.”
CO (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.”
MN (2011) “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.”

40. Literature Finding
AZ (2011) “[N]early nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide
online course, all had graduation rates and AIMS math passing rates below
the state average”
OH (2011) “[N]early 97 percent of Ohio's traditional school districts have a higher
score than the average score of the seven statewide” online charter
schools. Those schools in Ohio also underperformed brick-and-mortar
schools in graduation rates.
PA (2011) 100% of these online charter schools performed significantly worse than
feeder schools in both reading and math.
AR (2012) …online students performed at levels comparable to their face-to-face
counterparts in six out of eight measures, and on the remaining two
measures online students outperformed their face-to-face counterparts at a
0.10 statistically significant level.
National
(2012)
“…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.”
KS (2015) “Virtual school students perform similarly to traditional school students in
reading before and after controlling for student demographics. After
controlling for demographic differences, virtual school students’
performance in math was similar to that of traditional school students.”

45. Full-­‐Time
Online
Students
• Understanding
that
K¹²-­‐managed
schools
are
serving
large
numbers
of
students
who
enter
behind
grade
level
in
math
and
reading
K12
Inc.
Public
Affairs.
(2012).
Response
to
NEPC
report
on
K12
Inc..
Herndon,
VA:
K12,
Inc..
Retrieved
from
hFp://www.k12.com/response-­‐to-­‐nepc#.VPfKu2TF_Kk

46. • K12
Inc.
virtual
schools
enroll
approximately
the
same
percentages
of
black
students
but
substan5ally
more
white
students
and
fewer
Hispanic
students
rela=ve
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
propor5on
of
students
with
disabili5es
than
schools
in
their
states
and
in
the
na=on
as
a
whole
(9.4%
for
K12
schools,
11.5%
for
same-­‐state
comparisons,
and
13.1%
in
the
na=on).
• “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
na=on.”
Miron,
G.
&
Urschel,
J.
(2012).
Understanding
and
improving
full-­‐7me
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
Na=onal
Educa=on
Policy
Center.
Reality
of
Full-­‐Time
Online
Students

49. Newfoundland
and
Labrador

53. Student
Performance
and
Students
But
are
we
really
comparing
apples
to
apples?

54. Mulcahy,
Dibbon,
&
Norberg
(2008)
• study
of
rural
schooling
in
three
schools
on
the
south
coast
of
the
Labrador
• found
two
had
a
higher
percentage
of
students
enrolled
in
basic-­‐level
courses
• speculated
because
the
only
way
students
could
do
academic
course
at
their
school
was
online,
some
students
specifically
chose
the
basic
stream
to
avoid
taking
an
online
course
Students
who
enroll
in
the
basic
stream
are
not
eligible
for
post-­‐secondary
admiFance!

55. Academic
Tracks
• English
language
arts
• mathema=cs
• academic
stream
-­‐
gradua=on,
college,
university,
etc.
• basic
stream
-­‐
gradua=on,
trade
school
• CDLI
only
offered
academic
streamed
courses

56. Enrollment
-­‐
English
Language
Arts

57. Enrollment
-­‐
Mathema=cs

58. But
What
Does
This
Data
Really
Say?

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

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

61. Your
Ques=ons
and
Comments

62. Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University,
USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
hFp://www.michaelbarbour.com