These are the slides from my research-focused job talk at Texas Tech University in December 2015.

1. What’s
Driving
K-­‐12
Online
Learning?
Research
and
Policy
Responses
Michael
K.
Barbour
Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University

2. Why
Does
This
Ma@er?
1991
–
first
K-­‐12
online
learning
program
1994
–
first
supplemental
program
–
first
full-­‐Kme
program
1996-­‐97
–
creaKon
of
FLVS
&
VHS
2001
–
K12,
Inc.
begins
first
program

3. Why
Does
This
Ma@er?
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
acKvity
in
all
50
states
and
DC
(Watson
et
al.,
2011)
Today
–
between
two
and
six
million
(Ambient
Insights,
2014;
Watson
et
al.,
2015)

6. What
Do
We
Know?
• 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
pracKce
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
sKll
when
the
populaKon
of
students
is
further
narrowed
to
the
elementary
grades”
(Rice,
2006)

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

8. What
About
Research?
• Cavanaugh,
Barbour
and
Clark
(2009)
defended
this
state
of
affairs,
wriKng
that
“in
many
ways,
this
[was]
indicaKve
of
the
foundaKonal
descripKve
work
that
ofen
precedes
experimentaKon
in
any
scienKfic
field.”
• We
can
ask,
however,
how
long
must
we
wait?
(Barbour,
2011).

9. What
About
That
Performance
Research?

10. 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.

11. But
Look
A
Li@le
Closer...

12. 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

13. Are
We
Comparing
Apples
to
Apples?

14. 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.”

15. Is
This
RepresentaKve
of
All
K-­‐12
Online
Students?

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

17. 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
tradiKonal
schools
(Rapp,
Eckes
&
Plurker,
2006)

18. Literature
indicates
K-­‐12
online
learning
students
are...

19. According
to
proponents
and
the
cyber
schools
themselves,
most
or
a
large
segment
K-­‐12
online
learning
students
are
like
this…
But
is
this
really
the
reality??

20. What
Do
We
Know
About
Full-­‐Time
Performance?

21. 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.”

22. 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.”

27. Reality
of
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
h@p://www.k12.com/response-­‐to-­‐nepc#.VPfKu2TF_Kk

28. • K12
Inc.
virtual
schools
enroll
approximately
the
same
percentages
of
black
students
but
substan'ally
more
white
students
and
fewer
Hispanic
students
relaKve
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
naKon
as
a
whole
(9.4%
for
K12
schools,
11.5%
for
same-­‐state
comparisons,
and
13.1%
in
the
naKon).
• “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
naKon.”
Miron,
G.
&
Urschel,
J.
(2012).
Understanding
and
improving
full-­‐Fme
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
NaKonal
EducaKon
Policy
Center.
Reality
of
Full-­‐Time
Online
Students

29. “AYP
is
not
a
reliable
measure
of
school
performance….
There
is
an
emerging
consensus
to
scrap
AYP
and
replace
it
with
a
be@er
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
naKonal
average.”
Jeff
Kwitowski
-­‐
K12,
Inc.
Vice
President
of
Public
Affairs

31. Flawed
Comparisons…
But
What
Else
Do
We
Have?

32. Case
Study:
Colorado

33. Case
Study:
Colorado

34. Case
Study:
Colorado

35. Is
Research
Really
Guiding
Us?

36. Or
Is
This
More
Random?

40. Costs
of
Virtual
Schooling
Literature
Finding
Hausner
(2004)
-­‐
OH
“…cost
per
student
[of
cyber
schooling]
is
not
enormously
higher
than
for
in-­‐class
students.
Over
Kme,
cyber
educaKon
will
become
substanKally
more
cost-­‐efficient.”
Ohio
LegislaKve
Commi@ee
on
EducaKon
Oversight
(2005)
…actual
cost
of
the
five
exisKng
full-­‐Kme
online
charter
schools
was
$5382/student,
compared
to
$8437/student
for
tradiKonal
public
brick-­‐and-­‐
mortar
schools.
Florida
Tax
Watch
Center
for
EducaKonal
Performance
&
Accountability
(2007)
…Florida
Virtual
School
to
be
$284
more
cost
effecKve
than
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
educaKon
in
2003-­‐04,
and
$1048
more
cost
effecKve
by
2006-­‐07.
Dodd
(2010)
-­‐
GA
…able
to
meet
Annual
Yearly
Progress
in
2009-­‐10
with
65%
of
the
funding
provided
to
tradiKonal
schools,
or
$3500/student.

41. Costs
of
Virtual
Schooling
Literature
Finding
Gillis
(2010)
-­‐
WI
…able
to
operate
its
full-­‐Kme
online
charter
schools
at
65%
of
tradiKonal
funding,
or
$6,480/student.
Barbour
(2012)
-­‐
MI
…it
cost
16%
less
in
2009-­‐10
and
was
projected
to
cost
7%
less
in
2010-­‐11
to
provide
full-­‐Kme
online
learning
than
to
provide
tradiKonal
schooling.
Hassel
et
al.
(2012)
-­‐
NaKonal
…full-­‐Kme
K-­‐12
online
learning
costs
between
$5,100/student
and
$7,700/student—or
between
51%
and
77%
of
the
cost
of
tradiKonal
brick-­‐and-­‐
mortar
schooling.
iNACOL
(2013)
–
NaKonal
many
states
funded
virtual
schools
at
30-­‐50%
less
than
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
schools,
specifically
finding
that
the
naKonal
average
per
pupil
funding
for
virtual
schooling
was
approximately
$6,400,
while
per
pupil
funding
for
brick-­‐and-­‐mortar
schools
averaged
$11,282

44. What s
Really
Driving
this
Growth??

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

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

49. Research
Agenda
• ConKnue
and
expand
on
annual
examinaKon
of
K-­‐12
online
and
blended
learning
in
Canada
• ConKnue
annual
NaKonal
EducaKon
Policy
Center
virtual
schooling
studies
• Re-­‐kindle
and
expand
research
acKviKes
in
New
Zealand
• Pursue
Microsof
Azure
funding
for
K-­‐12
online
learning
analyKcs
• Explore
NSF
and
IES
funding
opportuniKes

50. Teaching
Philosophy
1. Social
construcKvism
postulates
knowledge
is
defined
as
meaning
that
is
negoKated
through
social
interacKon
within
a
community
of
learners
(Vygotsky,
1978).
2. Papert
(1980)
felt
students
learn
by
building
or
construcKng
their
knowledge
through
trial-­‐and-­‐
error
towards
a
meaningful
product.
3. Bloom
(1968)
argued
mastery
learning
was
where
students
were
provided
with
addiKonal
Kme
and
resources
if
they
required
it,
and
where
students
had
mulKple
opportuniKes
to
show
their
understanding
of
the
content.

51. Teaching
ArKfacts

52. Teaching
ArKfacts

53. Teaching
ArKfacts

54. Teaching
ArKfacts

55. Teaching
ArKfacts
• “The
feedback
provided
on
each
assignment
was
instrumental
in
learning
and
understanding
the
course
content.”
(EDL690
–
Summer
15)
• “He
was
also
accessible
and
responded
immediately
to
quesKons
and
issues.
His
feedback
was
nearly
instant,
which
was
encouraging.”
(EDL690
–
Summer
15)
• “The
feedback
the
instructor
gave
on
assignments
prior
to
submission.
That
is
always
beneficial
and
greatly
appreciated.”
(EDL689
–
Spring
15)
• “My
instructor
has
been
very
helpful
in
providing
feedback
whenever
I
have
send
him
my
work
for
review.”
(EDL689
–
Spring
15)
• “Dr.
Barbour
was
quick
to
respond
and
provided
quick
and
relevant
feedback.”
(EDL698
–
Fall
15)

56. Teaching
ArKfacts
• “Michael
is
passionate
about
ed.
research.
His
enthusiasm
rubs
off
on
even
the
most
reluctant
students.”
(EDL690
–
Summer
15)
• “Michael
is
very
enthusiasKc
about
the
materials
that
he
is
conveying,
and
wants
all
students
to
understand
the
process
and
the
outcomes.”
(EDL690
–
Summer
15)
• “He
was
enthusiasKc
about
the
material.”
(EDL689
–
Spring
15)
• “No
doubt
he
is
passionate
about
research!”
(EDL689
–
Spring
15)
• “He
displayed
a
genuine
interest
and
concern
for
student
work
and
student
success
in
the
project.”
(EDL698
–
Fall
15)

57. Service
• Departmental
/
college
/
university
• Re-­‐engaged
with
AECT
• ConKnue
involvement
with:
• Canadian
eLearning
Network
• Virtual
Learning
Network
(New
Zealand)

58. Your
QuesKons
and
Comments

59. h@p://www.slideshare.net/mkb

60. Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University
mkbarbour@gmail.com
h@p://www.michaelbarbour.com
h@p://virtualschooling.wordpress.com