Barbour, M. K. (2014, April). What do we actually know? Examining the research into virtual schools for useful models. A presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.

1. Michael
K.
Barbour
Sacred
Heart
University

2. • “based
upon
the
personal
experiences
of
those
involved
in
the
practice
of
virtual
schooling”
(Cavanaugh
et
al.,
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)

3. • “indicative
of
the
foundational
descriptive
work
that
often
precedes
experimentation
in
any
scientific
field.
In
other
words,
it
is
important
to
know
how
students
in
virtual
school
engage
in
their
learning
in
this
environment
prior
to
conducting
any
rigorous
examination
of
virtual
schooling.”
(Cavanaugh
et
al.,
2009)

4. 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)

6. Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
over half of students who completed FLVS courses
scored an A in their course & 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 algebraic
assessment than their classroom counterparts
Barbour &
Mulcahy (2008,
2009)
little difference in the overall performance of students
based upon delivery model

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. 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

11. • Online
student
scores
in
math,
reading,
and
wri4ng
have
been
lower
than
scores
for
students
statewide
over
the
last
three
years.
(Colorado,
2006)
• Virtual
charter
school
pupils
median
scores
on
the
mathema4cs
sec4on
of
the
Wisconsin
Knowledge
and
Concepts
Examina4on
were
almost
always
lower
than
statewide
medians
during
the
2005-­‐06
and
2006-­‐07
school
years.
(Wisconsin,
2010)
• “Half
of
the
online
students
wind
up
leaving
within
a
year.
When
they
do,
they’re
oMen
further
behind
academically
then
when
they
started.”
(Colorado,
2011)

12. • “Compared
with
all
students
statewide,
full-­‐4me
online
students
had
significantly
lower
proficiency
rates
on
the
math
MCA-­‐II
but
similar
proficiency
rates
in
reading.”
(Minnesota,
2011)
• “nearly
nine
of
every
10
students
enrolled
in
at
least
one
statewide
online
course,
all
had
gradua4on
rates
and
AIMS
math
passing
rates
below
the
state
average”
(Arizona,
2011)
• “…students
at
K12
Inc.,
the
na4on’s
largest
virtual
school
company,
are
falling
further
behind
in
reading
and
math
scores
than
students
in
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
schools.”
(Miron
&
Urschel,
2012)

14. • K12
Inc.
virtual
schools
enroll
approximately
the
same
percentages
of
black
students
but
substan'ally
more
white
students
and
fewer
Hispanic
students
rela4ve
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
na4on
as
a
whole
(9.4%
for
K12
schools,
11.5%
for
same-­‐state
comparisons,
and
13.1%
in
the
na4on).
• “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
na4on.”
Miron,
G.
&
Urschel,
J.
(2012).
Understanding
and
improving
full-­‐4me
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
Na4onal
Educa4on
Policy
Center.

15. “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

20. Watson
&
Gemin
(2009)
“online
schools
should
be
funded
within
the
range
of
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
school
operating
costs.”
BellSouth
Foundation
(2006)
“the
operating
costs
of
online
programs
are
about
the
same
as
the
operating
costs
of
a
regular
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
program.”
Florida
TaxWatch
(2007)
FLVS
was
$284
more
cost
effective
than
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
education
in
2003-­‐04,
this
increased
to
$1048
more
cost
effective
by
2006-­‐07

21. Colorado
Cyberschool
Association
(2004)
“cost
per
student
[of
cyber
schooling]
is
not
enormously
higher
than
for
in-­‐class
students.
Over
time,
cyber
education
will
become
substantially
more
cost-­‐efficient.”
Ohio
Legislative
Committee
on
Education
Oversight
(2005)
the
actual
cost
of
the
five
existing
full-­‐time
online
charter
schools
was
$5382/student,
compared
to
$8437/student
for
traditional
public
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
schools.
Gillis
(2010)
Insight
School
was
able
to
operate
their
full-­‐time
online
charter
schools
at
a
cost
of
only
$6,480/student
(which
was
approximately
65%
of
the
cost
of
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
education)
Barbour
(2012)
St.
Clair
Virtual
Learning
Academy
cost
16%
less
in
2009-­‐10
and
was
projected
to
cost
7%
less
in
2010-­‐11
to
provide
full-­‐time
online
learning
than
traditional
brick-­‐
and-­‐mortar
schooling
Fordham
Institute
(2012)
traditional
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
education
costs
on
average
$10,000/student,
full-­‐time
K-­‐12
online
learning
costs
between
$5,100/student
to
$7,700/student

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