Running Head: VIRTUAL LEARNING POLICY CHANGES 1

Virtual Learning Policy Changes

Julie Baumann

EDL 775

Central Michigan University

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 2

Abstract

As schools were beginning to implement methods of virtual learning around the country,

they were doing so without much research and knowledge of what would provide the best

academic success for this educational option. This paper will provide research regarding three

various options of virtual learning, including self-scheduled, supplements to regular brick-and-

mortar classes, and blended learning. While there is much data available country-wide, this

project will focus some of its data on Michigan.

Data will be provided for Michigan as it was reported by schools to Michigan

Department of Education (MDE) or Center for Educational Importance (CEPI) including

completion rates and overall impact of virtual courses on K-12 pupils (Freidhoff, p.2, 2017).

Secondly, I will provide various statistics that are available for the options throughout the U.S.

Finally, I will delve into the policy regarding virtual learning and my recommended virtual

learning options for schools across the country.

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 3

Literature Review

As the NEPC Annual Report on Virtual Education has stated, virtual education continues

to be a focal point for policy makers. Proponents argue that virtual learning can expand student

choice and improve the efficiency of public education. Further, the promise of lower costs,

including instructional personnel and facilities, makes virtual schools financially appealing to

policy makers (Molnar, et. al., Virtual Schools in the U.S., p.3, 2017).

With these characteristics being a great argument for virtual schools, these schools

continue to expand in the U.S. It also contributes to the policies and debates surrounding virtual

education. However, we need to take a look at the academic success of students utilizing all

models of virtual learning versus brick-and-mortar learning.

As Molnar, et. al., stated, “For 2015-16, close to 150 schools were excluded because no

enrollment data was available during the past three years, either because the enrollment was less

than 25 students in 2015-16, or because they were ‘programs’ based in traditional schools” (p.

12). This included blended learning and supplemental learning. With this being the case, States

needed to find ways to improve this enrollment data. Far more schools reported demographic

data than student-teacher ratios (Molnar, et. al., p. 27). As noted by numerous studies, the

academic success rates are limited to the availability of data schools can provide for this

population of students throughout the U.S.

However, In Michigan, one of the ways the State addressed this was by creating a new

avenue for the districts to submit data to the State via the Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL).

Prior to the implementation of the TSDL, data for students was only reported in one of the five

categories: Migrant Education, Dual Enrollment, Early Middle College, and Advanced
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 4

Placement participants (Freidhoff, p.4). With the new TSDL in Michigan, data on virtual learners

was also to be included and could be evaluated for students and teachers.

As schools are beginning to self-identify themselves as one of the various types of virtual

learning, States have adopted bills to identify accountability structures among these options. In

Ohio, a pending bill proposed oversight of blended learning models and a requirement that the

State Department of Education “develop a metric for measuring student performance in schools

that operate using the blended learning model” (Molnar, et. al., p. 80).

As stated by the NEPC Virtual Schools Annual 2017, there are gaps in the data due to

new requirements under Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and flexibility waivers and

extensions granted under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This has

required States to revamp their accountability standards, put them on hold, or provide

clarification of the system.

While there are 38 states with full-virtual or blended learning, there are other States,

including Michigan, that offer all forms of virtual learning as will be outlined in this project

(NEPC, 2017). In addition, Keeping Pace, also noted that districts in 29 States provide all

supplemental online course options to their students (p. 6).

In Michigan, Section 101(9), of the State School Aid Act (MCL 388.1701[9]), permits

the State Superintendent to waive the minimum number of hours and days of pupil instruction

for Alternative Education programs or other innovative programs approved by the Michigan

Department of Education (MDE) (MDE letter dated November 25, 2015). This has brought

about many policy changes and new methods of teaching students in today’s educational

environment.
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 5

The initial language of House Bill No. 4228 (2013) amended The State Act to include

virtual or online learning opportunities. Section 21(f) of this House bill defined “online courses”

as:

A course of study that is capable of generating a credit or a grade, that is provided in an

interactive internet-connected learning environment, in which pupils are separated from

their teachers by time or location, or both, and in which the teacher who holds a valid

Michigan teaching certificate is responsible for determining appropriate instructional

methods for each pupil, diagnosing learning needs, assessing pupil learning, prescribing

intervention strategies, reporting outcomes, and evaluating the effects of instruction and

support strategies.

In an interview with a representative from MDE he stated, “MDE supports choice and

flexibility for school district in general, with a focus on always considering what is in the best

interest of the student. Technology and virtual learning options are part of this flexibility”

(personal communication April 2, 2018). This takes us to the virtual learning options available

to students across the U.S.

Virtual Learning Options

Self-Directed Option

According to Keeping Pace, as of 2013-2014, Arizona, California, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania accounted for more than half of all fully online student enrollment across the

country, with more than 35,000 students enrolled in each state (The Public Impact and the

National Association of Charter School Authorizers p. 6, February, 2015). Virtual schools or

full-time virtual learners continued to underperform academically and not as well as their

blended school counterparts. Based on last year’s performance ratings for virtual schools (37.4%
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 6

acceptable), blended schools outperformed their virtual school counterparts by nearly two-fold: 72.7%

acceptable (Molnar, et. al., p. 31).

Reading through all of the resources regarding cyber schools or fully-virtual learning, it

appeared that a couple things were evident. First, the “right” student needs to access this option

of virtual learning. If they are not a good fit for this option, they will struggle. This includes the

communication aspect of this type of learning. Obviously this piece is what represents their

attendance in the school and/or classes. Some schools use it at the very minimal to just jump

through hoops to get state funding. Others utilize it as a chance to track academic progress and

success, or lack thereof.

Second, is that students utilizing this type of learning must be self-motivated and have

adequate support at home. As the cyber school administrator mentioned, “sometimes this option

is attractive to those students who don’t like to get up and go to school” (personal

communication, March 21, 2018). Obviously this option would not be ideal for that population

of students. They would just be setting themselves up for failure. It appears, however, that

students with self-motivation are a “right” fit for this option and can find success.

Upon interviewing a principal at a cyber-school that began in the 2012-13 school year,

questions about the politics and policies of virtual learning in this format arose. A question

specifically asked about the political realm of this dying down or increasing and he responded,

“it seems to have slowed considerably. I think that is because cyber schools and fully-virtual

learning aren’t showing a ton of success” (personal communication, March 21, 2018).

In Michigan, one of the options for virtual learning that lead this change, was Seat Time

Waivers (STW), which historically existed as a result of this legislation (MDE memo May 11,

2017). These waivers were the beginning of online learning in 2011. State Superintendent, Mike

Flanagan, began advocating for innovative programs to teach students in addition to the standard
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 7

brick-and-mortar schools. This approach was known as the three A’s, or any time, any place,

anywhere. This would be just the beginning of the evolving options for virtual learning designs

in Michigan.

This transformed into just a virtual learning option defined by the Public Impact and the

National Association of Charter School Authorizers as “students who take their entire course

load on line and may be not required to attend any classes in physical school buildings.” (p. 5).

This category can include cyber schools, full-time virtual through a district, or full-time through

a for-profit vendor.

Supplements to regular brick-and-mortar classes

These supplemental virtual courses allow a student to take classes online, but still remain

in the brick-and-mortar educational setting for remainder of their scheduled classes. Students

would be required to take at least one class at their school, often defined as “butt-in-seat.” This

mode of virtual learning has been defined by the Public Impact and the National Association of

Charter School Authorizers as “individual online courses to supplement existing curriculum

offerings and often operate in partnership with brick-and-mortar schools and/or traditional school

districts” (p. 5)

As Molnar, et al. mentions, the selective group of students that have been enrolled in

supplemental virtual school environments have largely underperformed—regardless of how

well-designed the virtual learning opportunity was. Over the past decade, there has been a

dramatic increase in the number of students engaged in supplemental virtual schooling that are

not reflective of this of highly engaged, highly capable student. Interestingly, much of the growth

in supplemental virtual schooling during this period has been with students often described as at-

risk. Many of these at-risk students are engaged in supplemental K-12 virtual schooling in the
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 8

form of online credit recovery. Recently, several studies have examined the performance of

students enrolled in online credit recovery. One study found that online credit recovery actually

hindered long-term knowledge retention and/or future success in the subject area of recovered

credits (Molnar, et. al., 2017, p. 50).

Blended Learning

In this case, blended instruction is the practice of combining frequent face-to-face

interaction with online learning to deliver the pupil’s instruction. The blended learning option

will allow districts to use online learning to deliver up to 50 percent of the pupil’s instruction

(MDE memo, May 19, 2016). The Public Impact and the National Association of Charter School

Authorizers defines this model as “schools that offer both online curriculum and in-person direct

instruction throughout the school day” (p. 6, 2017).

As the ever-increasing options for virtual learning continue to grow, it is difficult for

researchers to extrapolate data for just the blended learning options. There is a fine line between

the characteristics of full-time virtual learning, supplemental virtual learning, and blended

learning. Therefore, researchers are trying to distinguish between these models and how the

schools report them. It heavily relies on the districts to identify themselves containing a blended

learning environment.

One prime example is the Odyssey Charter School in Las Vegas, Nevada. Students are

required to physically attend the school for one four-hour session per week. During this session,

the students take one face-to-face class for two of the four hours. Based on various models of

blended learning, this charter follows a method of blended learning. However, the school self-

identifies themselves as cyber or online charter school (Molnar, et. al., p. 52).
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 9

Policy Recommendations
According to Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report 2015-16, generally

speaking, virtual learners did better when they took fewer virtual courses. Students taking one to

two virtual courses had a pass rate of 71% compared to a pass rate of 59% for those taking three

to four virtual courses and a pass rate of 55% for students taking five or more virtual courses.

Overall, the pass rate for virtual students was a total of 58% compared to non-virtual students

with a total of 78% pass rate (Freidhoff, p. 11). Unlike enrollment counts which have been

skyrocketing over the last six years, virtual pass rates have been quite static, hovering in the high

50s or low 60s (p.4).

People believe that online schools are flourishing even if they do not show the traditional

signs of success, such as high test scores or graduation rates. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of

Education, has stated that there will be more virtual schools. She also said she believes that there

are many schools that haven’t even been invented yet (Dobo, N., para. 11, February 22, 2017).

As we take all of the data provided into consideration, we can clearly see that virtual

learning is an educational environment that is ever-changing. While there are pros and cons to

each option, the dominant factor is that the blended-learning option for virtual learning is by far

the best option for student success as noted previously in the self-directed section of this project.

The data provided shows the blended-learning option has produced the greatest

achievement rates out of these three types of virtual learning: virtual learning (37.4%

acceptable), blended–learning 72.7% acceptable, and brick-and-mortar 78% acceptable. (Molnar,

et. al., p. 30). In addition, there is stronger and more productive connection between the teacher

and the student as they have a blended schedule of on-line and face-to-face education.

In 2015, nine States proposed pilot programs, task forces, oversight commissions and

state boards to study and oversee the development of virtual schools and their application
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 10

(Molnar, et. al., p. 77). Michigan continues to enact legislation regarding these types of learning

and how to get funding for them, but not much in regard to charting the academic success of

such programs. If these virtual options are the way of the future, it is imperative that more

legislation regarding oversight and academic achievements need to be provided. Students of

today are the leaders of tomorrow. Their academic success should be a top priority.

As the blended model of virtual learning has become an academic success second to only

brick-and-mortar learning, States need to take a look at providing this option for both financial

and academic reasons. At what expense does cost savings become more important than

academic success and completion rates? Some States are definitely on the right track to

providing legislation for these options, but Michigan is falling a little short. Hopefully they will

follow suit with other States and provide more oversight of these options.

In addition, as a principal of a virtual and blended learning school stated in an interview,

“until the schools who are using these programs are fully involved in the legislative decision-

making process, or a fuller understanding of how these programs are actually being used to

educate students is formed, each policy change is going to continue to be applied in a haphazard

manner, and not necessarily with any clear defined outcomes that are tied to the realities of this

practice” (personal communication, March 20, 2017). This is indicative to what Fowler states in

Policy Studies for Educational Leaders (2013) in regard to stakeholders relevant to the policy

change must be included. Policy makers should ask, “does this policy we are considering have

sufficient support among key stakeholders (p. 258)?

One criticism that has been at the front of the process in the per-pupil school funding. As

districts embark on these new virtual options, this allows students to choose their school, hence,

losing money for the home district.

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 11

Proponents of this educational trend are the educating district that is providing the virtual

learning program, and therefore, receiving the portion of foundation allowance. As per-pupil

funding should follow students through their educational path, it seems accurate that the funding

should be provided to the school that is actually educating the student during virtual classes.

This is definitely one of the key issues, along with student achievement, that districts are looking

at.

Policy Instruments

In evaluating the policy instruments provided by Fowler (2013), McDonnell and

Elmore’s instruments tie very appropriately into my recommended changes. This project will

focus on Mandates and Hortatory.

Mandates

As Fowler states in Chapter nine, two components make up a mandate: (1) is language

that spells out required behavior for all people in a specific social group, and (2) is a prescribed

penalty for those who fail to comply. These two components may take the form of a statute,

administrative rule, a court decision, a school board policy, or a school or classroom rule (p.

223).

As this could not only be a statewide recommendation, but also a nationwide

recommendation, it would need to be addressed by State Departments of Education and

lawmakers. To ensure there was support from local districts, school boards, superintendents,

principals, and staff must be stakeholders in the process. With strict mandates or legislation, this

could streamline virtual learning and provide students their best option based on data provided in

the project.
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 12

Along with these mandates, there would be penalties imposed on local districts that did

not adhere to this new legislation. Just like there is a penalty for various other mandates, virtual

learning would be no different. A percentage of State foundation allowance would be deducted

from a school for all violations.

Hortatory

To complement the mandate instrument, Fowlers hortatory instrument (2013) will also be

used. Hortatory, or persuasive, polices “send a signal that particular goals and actions are

considered a high priority by government” (p. 228). In order to have buy-in from local school

districts, this research would be disseminated to superintendents, school district boards,

principals and then staff to include them as stakeholders. With any policy there has to be support

from the people working directly with this change and also the people who make decisions for

the district. MDE and USDE has proven this is a high priority with the amount of time they have

been revamping and revisiting this type of education. In an interview with an MDE

representative he stated, “with the ever-changing technology world and the way it intertwines

with education, this has to be a priority” (personal communication April 2, 2018).

Fullan Educational Change Model

The four stages of the Fullan educational change model are: initiation, implementation,

continuation and outcome. Fullan (as cited in Rogers 1996), views every stakeholder in the

educational change as a change agent. As Fowler states (as cited in Fullan, 1993), “every person

is a change agent: It is only by individuals taking action to their own environments that there is

any change for deep change.”

For purposes of this change in the virtual learning environment, there are stakeholders at

various levels, including: local district boards, superintendents, principals, teachers, students,
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 13

legislature, MDE, and US Department of Education (USDE). In Policy Studies for Educational

Leaders (2013), Fowler also addresses the need for stakeholders relevant to the policy change

need to be involved. Policy makers should ask, “does this policy we are considering have

sufficient support among key stakeholders (p. 258)?” Upon reviewing the data provided

regarding virtual learning environments and student success, or lack thereof, across the U.S., and

specifically Michigan, we can see that this implementation of change is urgent.

Michigan began the initiation phase in 2011when Superintendent Flanagan began

advocating for innovative programs to teach students in addition to the standard brick-and-mortar

schools. This approach was known as the three A’s, or any time, any place, anywhere.

Unfortunately, this implementation did not have all of the local factors involved in this process

so it was missing some key stakeholders.

As data was being collected on academic achievement, MDE was continuing to implement

this innovational mode of learning. With each adjustment in the mode of the virtual learning

process, they continued to gain relevant data, but still not a substantial amount. Modifications

were made to the approach and more data was retrieved to learn that even this improvement was

not working. However, there was now more inclusion of stakeholders at this point. These

stakeholders included Departments of Education as external factors, and state superintendents,

local school boards, local superintendents, principals, and were the local factors. The data in this

project supports the movement toward these learning model changes as technology is ever-

increasing in today’s society. In addition to that, blended learning data shows that it can be a

successful avenue of utilizing technology in classrooms to save cost and give a certain

population of students an opportunity to succeed outside the brick-and-mortar setting.

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 14

While there were negative and positive responses, these responses, in turn, made the

continued implementation of these modes of learning more adequate to achieve student success.

These programs continue to be supported and overseen by the MDE in Michigan who has

established procedures to gain additional forward movement of this process. MDE continues to

keep this change at the forefront of their structure, including new data available to rely on. The

continuation of these changes must include a hierarchy of stakeholders, from bottom to top, to

achieve success. As there are numerous school districts and staff supporting this idea, it is

imperative to move forward with this process change.

In regard to outcome, information regarding blended-learning and its achievement data

need to be disseminated to the local factors and move up to the external factors. This would

begin with local administrative meetings with data supporting recommended changes with a

presentation, prior to moving up the external ladder to MDE. As there is buy-in at this level, it

could move upward to state educational associations, in particular, the Michigan Pupil

Accounting and Attendance Association, as they have representatives of both MDE and CEPI on

their board. Again, this would occur via a presentation.

As there will be positive and negative reactions to this, the implementation mode may need

to adjust accordingly. This would result, ultimately, in the addition of the updated virtual

learning model to the State Accounting Manual. This is the mandate that schools must follow to

administer this type of virtual learning.

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 15

Conclusion

Data regarding virtual learning has created a necessity for change in this mode of learning

across the US. As mentioned, there are 38 States who provide blended-learning and this is

increasing as technology changes and becomes more prevalent in schools. These blended-

learning models are needed to provide opportunities for all levels of student’s learning and utilize

the growing technology change in today’s society. As an extension of this change, these students

will be well-equipped in a college setting that utilizes technology for instruction.

The blended model of virtual learning has become an academic success second to only

brick-and-mortar learning. States need to take a look at providing this option for both financial

and academic reasons. With support, or recommendations, for this process change, there can be

improvement in student achievement.

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 16

References

Dobo, N. (February, 2017). DeVos praises virtual schools, but new research points to problems.

Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/devos-praises-virtual-schools-new-research-points-

problems/

Fowler, F., Policy Studies for Educational Leaders (2013). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Freidhoff, J.R. (2017). Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2015-2016. Lansing,

MI: Michigan Virtual Learning. Retrieved from http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/er_2016.pdf

Fullans Educational Change Article. Retrieved from

http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/Fullan.htm

Legislative Council, State of Michigan, State School Aid Act, Public Act 60 (2013). Retrieved from

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0060.pdf

Michigan Department of Education Memo dated May 11, 2017. Retrieved from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Seat_Time_Waiver_565020_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Education Memo dated May 19, 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/K-5_STW_Memo_5-19-2016_524810_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Education, Pupil Accounting Manual (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2017-18_PAM_599453_7.pdf

Molnar, A., Miron G., Gulosine, C., Shank, C., Davidson, C., Barbour, M.K., Huerta, L. Shafter,

R.R, Rice, J.K., and Nitkin, D. (2017) Virtual Schools Report 2017. Boulder CO: National

Education Center. Retrieved from

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/publications/RB%20Virtual%20Schools%202017_0.pdf
 VIRTUAL LEARNING 17

Public Impact and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Study of Virtual School

Performance and Impact, February, 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.edweek.org/media/georgia%20virtual%20schools%20study%20for%20scsc%20of

%20ga_final_3.25.15.pdf

Van Beek, M. (2011). Mackinaw Center for Public Policy, Virtual Learning in Michigan’s Schools.

Retrieved from https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2011/s2011-01-VirtualLearningFINAL.pdf

 VIRTUAL LEARNING 18

Appendix A

Interview Questions

Politics

1. As the State Superintendent began this push for anytime, anyplace, anywhere, did you see much

political support for this endeavor?

2. Was this a debated topic in the legislature?

3. Who were the majority of the supporters and opponents?

4. Have you seen the political realm of this die down or increase?

Policies

1. When did these policies come into effect?

2. Have the policies associated with virtual learning changed?

3. Have these policies changed for the better/worse?

4. Do your policies allow for unlimited/limited number of classes?

General

1. What is the impact of K-12 online learning on student achievement?

2. What factors can increase online success rate?

3. What do you do about teacher to student communication?

4. What are the characteristics of a successful teach in online learning programs?

5. Is the training, mentoring, and support systems for these teachers effective?