ACSDE 2021 - Getting Us Started with K-12 Distance and Online Learning
0 likes93 views
The document discusses the history and current state of K-12 distance and online learning, detailing research findings on student performance and graduation rates across virtual schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools. It highlights significant underperformance in virtual education, with many students exhibiting weaker academic growth and lower proficiency rates, particularly in math and reading. The document emphasizes the need for effective teaching strategies and planning for online learning in response to disruptions, drawing historical parallels with past pandemics.
![Student Performance
Report Finding
2013 While 52% of brick-and-mortar district and charter schools met AYP, only 23.6% of virtual schools did
the same.
2014 “Virtual schools’ Adequate Yearly Progress results were 22 percentage points lower than those of
brick-and-mortar schools… The on-time graduation rates for full-time virtual schools was close to
half the national average: 43.8% and 78.6%, respectively.”
2015 “Full-time virtual schools continued to lag significantly behind traditional brick-and-mortar schools…
The on-time graduation rate (or four-year graduation rate) for full-time virtual schools was nearly
half the national average: 43.0% and 78.6%, respectively.”
2016 “Of the 121 virtual schools for which data were available, 22 (18.2%) had proficiency rates above the
state average; 82 percent had proficiency rates below state averages… The on-time graduation rate
(or four-year graduation rate) for full-time virtual schools was half the national average: 40.6% for
virtual schools and 81.0% for the nation as a whole.”
2017 “[Only] 37.4 percent of full-time virtual schools received acceptable performance ratings… The
graduation rate of 43.4% in virtual schools [compared to a national average of 82.3%].”
2018 “Virtual schools continued to underperform academically, …36.4% of full-time virtual schools
received acceptable performance ratings. The graduation rate of 50.7% in virtual schools… fell far
short of the national average of 83%.”
2019 “Overall, 48.5% of full-time virtual schools were rated acceptable performance ratings… the on-time
graduation rates for full-time virtual schools (50.1%)… fell far short of the national average of 84%.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/acsde-feb-2021-210519052701/85/ACSDE-2021-Getting-Us-Started-with-K-12-Distance-and-Online-Learning-12-320.jpg)
![Student Performance
Study Finding
Ohio (2019) “Students attending online charter schools have substantially weaker growth in both reading and math than the
average TPS VCRs. The gaps translate to 47 fewer days of learning in reading and 136 fewer days of learning in
math for online charter students.”
North Carolina (2017) “For the 2015-16 school year, both VCS received an overall School Performance Grade (SPG) of D which
translates numerically to a 52 for Connections and 45 for NCVA respectively. Both VCS received a SPG of C in
Reading and an F SPG in Mathematics. Comparatively, during the 2015-16 school year, traditional public schools
had a lower percentage of schools with D and F (22.9%) than public charter school (27.7%).”
Ohio (2017) The students who started e-schools in the lower baseline academic distribution scored lower on state testing and
had lower likelihoods of meeting high school graduation standards. Students with prior levels of high
achievement also scored lower than their traditional public and charter school peers, but the difference was not
as stark as those with lower prior levels of academic achievement.
National (2016) “Compared to traditional public school students, full-time virtual charter school students have much weaker
academic growth overall. Full-time virtual charter schools perform worse than traditional public schools in most
states. All subgroups of students have weaker academic growth in full-time virtual charter schools than in
traditional public schools. The vast majority of full-time virtual charter schools perform worse than traditional
public schools.”
Ohio (2016) “Across all grades and subjects, students who attend e-schools perform worse on state tests than otherwise-
similar students who attend brick-and-mortar district schools, even accounting for prior achievement”
Tennessee (2016) “The scores are generally lower [for the full-time cyber schools] than the scores of the districts that established
the schools.”
National (2015) “Across all tested students in online charters, the typical academic gains for math are -0.25 standard deviations
(equivalent to 180 fewer days of learning) and -0.10 (equivalent to 72 fewer days) for reading.”
Georgia (2015) “In 2013–14, none of Georgia’s three statewide fully online schools: A) met all of the standardized assessment
goals included in their respective charter contracts; or B) outperformed the state on the CCRPI ‘achievement’
component.”
Kansas (2015) Online students (which included a combination of full-time and supplemental students) performed at similar
levels in reading before and after controlling for student demographics, but that online students performed at
lower levels in mathematics compared to their face-to-face counterparts.
Colorado (2014) “Online school performance on state assessments had been lower across all grade levels and content areas than
that of its brick and mortar counterparts.”
Ohio (2014) “… [virtual] schools experienced lower student performance than their traditional counterparts.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/acsde-feb-2021-210519052701/85/ACSDE-2021-Getting-Us-Started-with-K-12-Distance-and-Online-Learning-13-320.jpg)
ACSDE 2021 - Getting Us Started with K-12 Distance and Online Learning
- 1. Getting Us Started with K-12 Distance and Online Learning Michael K. Barbour Touro University California
- 6. What Does the Research Tell Us? How Should Research Shape Policy? Michael K. Barbour Touro University California H istory of K- 12 Distance Education History of K-12 Distance Learning
- 7. History of K-12 Online Learning
- 8. Borup, Chambers, & Stimson (2018) Supplemental K-12 Online Learning
- 9. Digital Learning Collaborative. (2019). Snapshot 2019: A review of K-12 online, blended, and digital learning. Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group.
- 10. Borup (2015) Full-Time K-12 Online Learning
- 11. Digital Learning Collaborative. (2019). Snapshot 2019: A review of K-12 online, blended, and digital learning. Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group.
- 12. Student Performance Report Finding 2013 While 52% of brick-and-mortar district and charter schools met AYP, only 23.6% of virtual schools did the same. 2014 “Virtual schools’ Adequate Yearly Progress results were 22 percentage points lower than those of brick-and-mortar schools… The on-time graduation rates for full-time virtual schools was close to half the national average: 43.8% and 78.6%, respectively.” 2015 “Full-time virtual schools continued to lag significantly behind traditional brick-and-mortar schools… The on-time graduation rate (or four-year graduation rate) for full-time virtual schools was nearly half the national average: 43.0% and 78.6%, respectively.” 2016 “Of the 121 virtual schools for which data were available, 22 (18.2%) had proficiency rates above the state average; 82 percent had proficiency rates below state averages… The on-time graduation rate (or four-year graduation rate) for full-time virtual schools was half the national average: 40.6% for virtual schools and 81.0% for the nation as a whole.” 2017 “[Only] 37.4 percent of full-time virtual schools received acceptable performance ratings… The graduation rate of 43.4% in virtual schools [compared to a national average of 82.3%].” 2018 “Virtual schools continued to underperform academically, …36.4% of full-time virtual schools received acceptable performance ratings. The graduation rate of 50.7% in virtual schools… fell far short of the national average of 83%.” 2019 “Overall, 48.5% of full-time virtual schools were rated acceptable performance ratings… the on-time graduation rates for full-time virtual schools (50.1%)… fell far short of the national average of 84%.”
- 13. Student Performance Study Finding Ohio (2019) “Students attending online charter schools have substantially weaker growth in both reading and math than the average TPS VCRs. The gaps translate to 47 fewer days of learning in reading and 136 fewer days of learning in math for online charter students.” North Carolina (2017) “For the 2015-16 school year, both VCS received an overall School Performance Grade (SPG) of D which translates numerically to a 52 for Connections and 45 for NCVA respectively. Both VCS received a SPG of C in Reading and an F SPG in Mathematics. Comparatively, during the 2015-16 school year, traditional public schools had a lower percentage of schools with D and F (22.9%) than public charter school (27.7%).” Ohio (2017) The students who started e-schools in the lower baseline academic distribution scored lower on state testing and had lower likelihoods of meeting high school graduation standards. Students with prior levels of high achievement also scored lower than their traditional public and charter school peers, but the difference was not as stark as those with lower prior levels of academic achievement. National (2016) “Compared to traditional public school students, full-time virtual charter school students have much weaker academic growth overall. Full-time virtual charter schools perform worse than traditional public schools in most states. All subgroups of students have weaker academic growth in full-time virtual charter schools than in traditional public schools. The vast majority of full-time virtual charter schools perform worse than traditional public schools.” Ohio (2016) “Across all grades and subjects, students who attend e-schools perform worse on state tests than otherwise- similar students who attend brick-and-mortar district schools, even accounting for prior achievement” Tennessee (2016) “The scores are generally lower [for the full-time cyber schools] than the scores of the districts that established the schools.” National (2015) “Across all tested students in online charters, the typical academic gains for math are -0.25 standard deviations (equivalent to 180 fewer days of learning) and -0.10 (equivalent to 72 fewer days) for reading.” Georgia (2015) “In 2013–14, none of Georgia’s three statewide fully online schools: A) met all of the standardized assessment goals included in their respective charter contracts; or B) outperformed the state on the CCRPI ‘achievement’ component.” Kansas (2015) Online students (which included a combination of full-time and supplemental students) performed at similar levels in reading before and after controlling for student demographics, but that online students performed at lower levels in mathematics compared to their face-to-face counterparts. Colorado (2014) “Online school performance on state assessments had been lower across all grade levels and content areas than that of its brick and mortar counterparts.” Ohio (2014) “… [virtual] schools experienced lower student performance than their traditional counterparts.”
- 14. “One thing we do know is that the effectiveness of distance education appears to have more to do with who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished, and less to do with the medium.” (Rice, 2006, p. 442)
- 15. “Media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries cause changes in our nutrition.” (Clark, 1983, p. 445)
- 17. The Research? Top journal published 7% of the total articles. 132 journals published four or fewer articles. 102 journals published one article. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Journal of Online Learning Research American Journal of Distance Education International Journal of E-Learning & Distance… Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning* Journal of Technology and Teacher Education TechTrends The Morning Watch Distance Learning International Review of Research in Open and… Quarterly Review of Distance Education NUMBER OF ARTICLES JOURNALS Top 10 Journals
- 18. • Author Analysis—384 distinct authors; ranked by number of articles and position of authorship. • Top 11 authors: Michael Barbour (57), Cathy Cavanaugh (19), Ken Stevens (18) Elizabeth Murphy (16), Charles Graham (15), Margaret Roblyer (14), Jered Borup (14), Leanna Archambault (12), Diana Greer (11), Dennis Beck (10), Niki Davis (10) • Of note: 276 authors (just under 75% of the authors) published only one article; more than half of these articles were published from 2011 though 2016, perhaps indicating a growth in interest in K-12 online learning and newer scholars. The Research?
- 19. State of K-12 Online Learning Research 1. Possesses a confusing terminology 2. Has a lack of historical perspective 3. Exists is an absence of construct validity 4. Suffers from a tension due to a postmodern turn in research 5. Is American-centric
- 22. • McCracken (2020) described how during the Spanish flu pandemic the telephone – a technology only 40 years old at the time – was being used for high school students in Long Beach. According to the author, “the fact that California students were using it as an educational device was so novel that it made the papers” (para. 2). • during the polio epidemic in New Zealand in 1948, which closed all of that country’s schools, and the Correspondence School – now Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu – used traditional correspondence education to send lessons to every household, as well as using educational radio to broadcast lessons during the first semester of the school year (Te Kura, 2018) • distance/online learning has regularly been suggested as an option to maintain instructional time during short term school closures (Haugen, 2015; Hua et al., 2017; Milman, 2014; Morones, 2014; Swetlik et al., 2015). • online learning helped facilitate continued access to instruction in 2003 in Hong Kong when schools had to close due to the SARS outbreak (Alpert, 2011) • during the H1N1 outbreak in 2008 remote teaching allowed approximately 560,000 students in Hong Kong to continue learning during that pandemic induced school closure (Latchem & Jung, 2009) • following high levels of absenteeism during the H1N1 pandemic, private schools in Boliva developed their own virtual classrooms and trained teachers on how to teach in that environment (Barbour et al., 2011) • “in Singapore online and blended learning was so pervasive that teaching in online and virtual environments was a required course in their teacher education programs and schools are annually closed for week-long periods to prepare the K-12 system for pandemic or natural disaster forced closures” (Barbour, 2010, p. 310). • “the immediate post-earthquake challenges of redesigning courses using different blends of face-to-face and online activities to meet the needs of on-campus, regional campus, and distance pre-service teacher education students” (Mackey et al., 2012, p. 122) • schools should plan for the following sustaining school operations when a disaster makes school buildings inaccessible or inoperable for an extended period of time including connectivity, device distribution, teacher preparation, instructional modalities, content creation/curation, etc. (Rush et al., 2016)
- 25. Associate Professor of Instructional Design College of Education & Health Services Touro University California mkbarbour@gmail.com http://www.michaelbarbour.com