This document summarizes research on K-12 online learning. It finds that while K-12 online learning has grown significantly since the 1990s, research on its effectiveness remains limited. Studies that do exist have found mixed results on student performance in online environments compared to brick-and-mortar schools. Additionally, online students tend to be more motivated, higher-achieving, and less socioeconomically diverse than traditional students. Research on full-time online schools shows lower performance levels than traditional schools, and that online schools often enroll students performing below grade level in math and reading. More research is still needed that directly compares like student populations.

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
2000-­‐01
–
between
40,000-­‐50,000
students
(Clark,
2001)
2010-­‐11
–
K-­‐12
online
learning
acSvity
in
all
50
states
and
DC
(Watson
et
al.,
2011)
Today
–
between
two
and
six
million
(Ambient
Insights,
2014;
Watson
et
al.,
2015)

5. 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
pracSce
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
sSll
when
the
populaSon
of
students
is
further
narrowed
to
the
elementary
grades”
(Rice,
2006)

6. What
Do
We
Know?
• Cavanaugh,
Barbour
and
Clark
(2009)
defended
this
state
of
affairs,
wriSng
that
“in
many
ways,
this
[was]
indicaSve
of
the
foundaSonal
descripSve
work
that
o_en
precedes
experimentaSon
in
any
scienSfic
field.”
• We
can
ask,
however,
how
long
must
we
wait?
(Barbour,
2011).

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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 K-12, differences
should be viewed as merely suggestive

11. Are
We
Comparing
Apples
to
Apples?

12. 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.”

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

14. 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.”

15. 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.”

20. 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

21. • 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-­‐Fme
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
NaSonal
EducaSon
Policy
Center.
Reality
of
Full-­‐Time
Online
Students

22. “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
naSonal
average.”
Jeff
Kwitowski
-­‐
K12,
Inc.
Vice
President
of
Public
Affairs

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

24. Full-­‐Time
Student
Performance:
Growth

25. Full-­‐Time
Student
Performance:
Growth

26. Full-­‐Time
Student
Performance:
Growth

27. Is
Research
Really
Guiding
Us?

30. Or
Is
There
A
Different
MoSvaSon?

32. What s
Really
Driving
this
Growth??

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

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

35. Your
QuesSons
and
Comments

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

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