Barbour, M. K. (2015, October). Virtual schooling and K-12 online learning: A bridge still too far? An invited feature presentation at the 21st annual Online Learning Consortium International Conference, Orlando, FL.

1. Michael
K.
Barbour
Sacred
Heart
University

2. 1991
–
first
K-­‐12
online
learning
program
1994
–
first
supplemental
program
–
first
full-­‐time
program
1996-­‐97
–
creation
of
FLVS
&
VHS
2001
–
K12,
Inc.
begins
first
program

3. 2000-­‐01
–
between
40,000-­‐50,000
students
(Clark,
2001)
2010-­‐11
–
between
one
and
four
million
(Ambient
Insights,
2011;
Watson
et
al.,
2011)
–
K-­‐12
online
learning
activity
in
all
50
states
and
DC
(Watson
et
al.,
2011)
Today
–
between
two
and
six
million
(Ambient
Insights,
2014;
Watson
et
al.,
2014)

4. • A
number
of
scholars
have
documented
the
absence
of
rigorous
reviews
of
virtual
schools
(Barbour
&
Reeves,
2009).
• “based
upon
the
personal
experiences
of
those
involved
in
the
practice
of
virtual
schooling”
(Cavanaugh,
Barbour
&
Clark
,
2009)
• “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)

5. • Cavanaugh,
Barbour
and
Clark
(2009)
defended
this
state
of
affairs,
writing
that
“in
many
ways,
this
[was]
indicative
of
the
foundational
descriptive
work
that
often
precedes
experimentation
in
any
scientific
field.”
• We
can
ask,
however,
how
long
must
we
wait?
(Barbour,
2011).

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.”

10. 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.”

11. 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.”

12. Virtual
Public
Education
In
California:
A
Study
of
Student
Performance,
Management
Practices
and
Oversight
Mechanisms
at
California
Virtual
Academies,
a
K12
Inc.
Managed
School
System
http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Virtual_Public_Education_In_California.pdf

13. Several
findings
suggest
that
the
virtual
education
model
advanced
by
K12
Inc.
in
California
does
not
adequately
serve
many
of
its
students.
In
every
year
since
it
began
graduating
students,
except
2013,
CAVA
has
had
more
dropouts
than
graduates.
Its
academic
growth
was
negative
for
most
of
its
history
and
it
did
not
keep
up
with
other
demographically
similar
schools
after
2005.
Its
Academic
Performance
Index
scores
consistently
ranked
poorly
against
other
demographically
similar
schools
and
the
state
as
a
whole.

14. • 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
hIp://www.k12.com/response-­‐to-­‐nepc#.VPfKu2TF_Kk

15. • K12
Inc.
virtual
schools
enroll
approximately
the
same
percentages
of
black
students
but
substan'ally
more
white
students
and
fewer
Hispanic
students
relaSve
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
propor'on
of
students
with
disabili'es
than
schools
in
their
states
and
in
the
naSon
as
a
whole
(9.4%
for
K12
schools,
11.5%
for
same-­‐state
comparisons,
and
13.1%
in
the
naSon).
• “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
naSon.”
Miron,
G.
&
Urschel,
J.
(2012).
Understanding
and
improving
full-­‐?me
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
NaSonal
EducaSon
Policy
Center.

16. “AYP
is
not
a
reliable
measure
of
school
performance….
There
is
an
emerging
consensus
to
scrap
AYP
and
replace
it
with
a
better
system
that
measures
academic
progress
and
growth.
K12
has
been
measuring
student
academic
growth
on
behalf
of
its
partner
schools,
and
the
results
are
strong
with
academic
gains
above
the
national
average.”
Jeff
Kwitowski
-­‐
K12,
Inc.
Vice
President
of
Public
Affairs

17. But
What
Else
Do
We
Have?

22. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐schools-­‐annual-­‐2014
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐schools-­‐annual-­‐2015
Book:
The
Test-­‐Based
Education
Reforms:
Lessons
from
a
Failed
Agenda
http://www.infoagepub.com/series/National-­‐Education-­‐Policy-­‐Center

23. — Tom
Clark
&
Michael
K.
Barbour,
Co-­‐Editors,
Stylus,
2015
— Stylus
Online,
Blended
&
Distance
Ed
Series
Michael
G.
Moore,
Editor
Book
Wiki
Portal:
bit.do/obdewiki
(onlineblendedschooling.wikispaces.com)

24.
50-­‐nation
iNACOL
survey
(2011)
4/23/2015
24
8
Trends
in
K-­‐12
Online
&
Blended
Learning
Every
continent
except
South
America
represented
North
America
(4)
Oceania
(2)
Europe
(21)
Asia
&
Middle
East
(11)
Africa
(7)
45
NATIONS
PROFILED

25. Case
studies
for
book
(2015)
Australia
(Harris,
Ch
14)
South
Korea
(Kim
&
Seo,
Ch
16)
Nepal
(Cavanaugh,
Ch
13)
Canada
(Smallwood
,
Reaburn
&
Baker,
Ch
12)
USA
(Oliver
&
Weeks,
Ch
8;
Yang
&
Rice,
Ch9;
Revenaugh,
Ch
10;
Ebert
&
Powell,
Ch
11)
UK
(Boulton
&
Hasler
Waters,
Ch
15)

26. Growing
use
of
open
education
resources
&
LMS
(Darrow,
Ch
3)
Source:
www.deltainitiative.com

27. Growing
use
of
open
learning
environments
(Revanaugh,
Ch
10)
Source:
Connections
Education

28. Robust
broadband
&
wifi
needed
for
mobile
learning;
connectivity
gaps
in
schools
(Rose
et
al,
Ch
7;
Cavanaugh,
Ch
13)
— National
curriculum
and
assessment
initiatives
may
drive
increased
connectivity
— Smart
Learning
(S.
Korea)

29. Developing
nations
catching
up
in
mobile
access;
may
“leapfrog”
educational
technologies
(Cavanaugh,
Ch
13)
Mobile
Subscriptions
by
Economic
Development
Level

30. Emergence
of
K–12
blended
learning
has
brought
online
learning
into
mainstream
(Revanaugh,
Ch
13.
Ebert
&
Powell,
Ch
11)
Adapted
with
permission
from
"Classifying
K–12
blended
learning,"
by
Heather
Stakerand
Michael
B.
Horn,
©
2012,
Innosight
Institute.

31. Outside
the
U.S.,
many
nations
have
different
paradigms
for
digital
learning
— Little
full-­‐time
K-­‐12
online
learning
— Online
learning
used
when
F2F
unavailable
— Any
digital
tech
use
may
be
considered
“e-­‐learning”
(Smallwood,
Reaburn
&
Baker,
Ch
12;
Cavanaugh,
Ch
13;
Harris,
Ch
14;
Boulton
&
Hasler-­‐Waters,
Ch
15;
Kim
&
Seo,
Ch
16)
DIGITAL
WORLDWIDE…
LEARNING
ENVIRON-­‐
MENTS
CURRIC-­‐
ULUM
RESOUR-­‐
CES
REPOSI-­‐
TIORIES
LITERACY

32. Important
new
roles
for
K-­‐12
teachers
as
facilitators,
guiding
and
shaping
learning
— Primarily
provide
scaffolding,
support
and
intervention.
— Effective
practices
(Kennedy
&
Archambault,
Ch.
2);
Certifications
and
Endorsements
(Yang
&
Rice,
Ch.
9)

33. Trend
toward
increasing
personalization
via
technology
— Personalized
learning
(Revenaugh,
Ch
10)
— Individualized
learning
(Smallwood,
Reaburn
&
Baker,
Ch
12;
Harris,
Ch14)
— Authentic
collaborative
activities
(Boulton
&
Hasler
Waters,
Ch
15)

34. Online
learner
interactions
increasingly
used
to
adapt
teaching
and
learning
— Example:
Nexus
Academy
— dynamic
F2F
grouping
of
students
to
learn
a
specific
objective
based
on
CC-­‐aligned
embedded
testing
— use
of
adaptive
testing
to
personalize
learning
program,
track
progress
(Revenaugh,
Ch
10)

35. — Ask
the
right
questions
to
build
evidence-­‐based
practice,
such
as:
? Under
what
conditions
does
K-­‐12
online
and
blended
learning
work
best?
Rather
than
asking:
? Does
it
work
better
than
face-­‐to-­‐face?
(Ferdig,
Cavanaugh,
&
Freidhoff,
Ch
5)

36. Online
is
complex;
blended
even
more
so
(Ferdig,
Cavanaugh
&
Freidhoff,
Ch
5)

38. Session Evaluations Contest
• Open
OLC
Conferences
Mobile
App
• Navigate
to
session
to
evaluate
• Click
on
"Rate
this
Session“
• Complete
Session
Evaluation*
(As
part
of
our
"green"
initiatives,
OLC
is
no
longer
using
paper
forms
for
session
evaluations.)
*Contact
information
required
for
contest
entry
but
will
not
be
shared
with
the
presenters.
Winners
will
be
contacted
post-­‐conference.
Each
session
evaluation
completed
(limited
to
one
per
session)
=
one
contest
entry
Five
(5)
$25
gift
cards
will
be
awarded
to
five
(5)
individuals
Must
submit
evals
using
the
OLC
Conferences
mobile
app

39. Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University
mkbarbour@gmail.com
hIp://www.michaelbarbour.com
hIp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com