/ Publication / Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2018-19

Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2018-19
Published on March 30, 2020

Modified on March 30, 2020

Written By: 

Joseph R. FreidhoffMichigan Virtual

Suggested Citation

Freidhoff, J. R. (2020). Michigan’s k-12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2018-19. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Available from https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/michigans-k-12-virtual-learning-effectiveness-report-2018-19/

Executive Summary

Based on pupil completion and performance data reported by public schools to MDE or CEPI, this report highlights 2018-19 enrollment totals, completion rates, and the overall impact of virtual courses on K-12 pupils. Detailed findings are presented in sections on schools, courses, and students, as well as over 50 data tables at the end of the report

About 8% of all K-12 students in the state—over 120,000 students—took virtual courses in 2018-19. These students generated almost 640,000 virtual course enrollments and were present in two-thirds of Michigan public school districts. Schools with part-time virtual learners were responsible for the majority of virtual enrollments. About four out of five virtual enrollments came from high school students, and the most highly enrolled in virtual courses were those required for high school graduation. Two-thirds of the virtual enrollments were from students who were in poverty. The overall pass rate for virtual courses (55%) remained the same as the past two years; however, there remains sizable variation in student success.

Infographic summarizes the statistics in the immediately preceding paragraph.

 

View Infographic Download PDF Version Watch Report Overview

Introduction

This report presents analysis of information on virtual learners reported by schools to the state and shares findings in a highly consumable way to aid the evaluation of virtual learning programs. This year’s report is the seventh edition of this annual publication. Past reports are available through the Michigan Virtual website. The report is organized into several sections. The first section looks at schools as the unit of analysis. The next section focuses on the virtual courses taken. The third section focuses on students. The fourth section captures performance on statewide assessments. There is also a brief section containing maps of virtual use. Each section is meant to capture the essential findings without being overly data intensive; however, data tables have been included in the appendices to provide those interested with more in-depth information. Information about the report’s methodology is captured in Appendix A. Please note that in some tables and figures, the percentage data may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Schools

Fast Facts

  • 608 school districts reported at least one virtual enrollment. This represents two-thirds of Michigan school districts.
  • Over half of the 1,225 schools with virtual enrollments had 100 or more virtual enrollments.
  • 75% of schools with virtual enrollments had a general education school emphasis; 24% had an alternative education emphasis.
  • 88% of schools with virtual learning were LEA schools.
  • LEA schools accounted for 58% of the virtual enrollments; PSA schools generated 39% of the virtual enrollments.
  • 54% of virtual enrollments came from schools with part-time virtual learning options.
  • LEA schools had the most full-time virtual schools (59).
  • 98% of virtual enrollments came from schools with 100 or more virtual enrollments.
  • About 79% of virtual enrollments came from students in grades 9-12.
  • 31% of virtual enrollments came from suburban schools, the most of any locale.
  • Schools with a general education emphasis had a 65% virtual pass rate, outperforming those with an alternative education emphasis, which had a pass rate of 42%.
  • 26% of schools had a school-wide virtual pass rate of 90% to 100%.

Number of Districts

For the 2018-19 school year, 608 districts reported having at least one virtual enrollment. This represented over two-thirds of the 905 Michigan public school districts for the year. See the MI School Data Report for a breakdown of the district count. Within those districts, 1,225 schools reported virtual enrollments, an increase of 67 schools from the prior year.

By Grade Level

Across the 1,225 schools, 639,130 virtual enrollments were taken. Students in 12th grade enrolled in the most virtual courses (178,058), representing approximately 28% of all virtual enrollments. The overall pass rate for virtual enrollments was 55%, the same as the prior two years. See Table F1 for a more specific breakdown of all the completion statuses. This ranged from a high of 74% in kindergarten to a low of 41% in 9th grade. See Table B1 for more information. Consistent with findings from previous years, virtual learners passed their virtual courses at a lower rate (55%) than they passed their non-virtual courses (76%). This gap is smaller than the past year due to the non-virtual pass rate for students dropping from 79% to 76%. See Table B2.

By School-Level Virtual Pass Rate

Of the 1,225 schools with virtual enrollments, 316 or 26% had school-level virtual pass rates of 90% to 100%. A little more than half of schools had virtual pass rates of 70% or better. See Table B3.

By Entity Type

LEA schools (58%) and PSA schools (39%) accounted for almost all the virtual enrollments. Virtual enrollments came from 1,072 (88%) LEA schools while only 110 (9%) of the schools were PSAs. See Table B4. LEA schools had a higher pass rate (58%) than PSA schools (49%). See Table B5 or, for a more in-depth look at the completion statuses, see Table F2.

By Full-Time Virtual Schools

The number of full-time virtual schools was up from 70 to 79 in 2018-19. Fifty-nine of the 79 full-time virtual schools (75%) were LEA schools. PSA schools accounted for 20% of the full-time virtual schools. See Table B6. Close to 40% of students attending full-time virtual schools did so at LEA schools with about 60% attending a PSA school. The pass rates between these two entity types were fairly close with full-time virtual LEA schools at 51% and PSA schools at 49%. See Table B7 and Table F3. In total, 46% of virtual enrollments came from cyber or full-time virtual schools – three percent higher than last year.

By Part-Time Virtual Schools

About 94% of the schools offering virtual learning do so to supplement their face-to-face course offerings. These 1,146 schools, referred to in this report as part-time virtual schools, were predominantly LEA schools (88%). See Table B8. Eighty-six percent of the part-time virtual students were enrolled through LEA schools and 10% through PSA schools. LEA schools accounted for over 275,000 virtual enrollments or 80% of the part-time enrollments. In total, part-time virtual enrollments accounted for 54% of all the virtual enrollments for the year. LEA schools had a pass rate of 61% whereas PSA schools had a pass rate of 50%. Overall, the pass rates for the part-time virtual schools (60%) was over 10 percentage points higher than the rate for the full-time virtual schools (49%). See Table B9 and Table F4.

By School Emphasis

Three out of four schools with virtual learning were designated as General Education and produced 357,347 (56%) of the virtual enrollments. Schools with Alternative Education as their emphasis accounted for 277,894 (43%) of the virtual enrollments. See Table B10. There was a considerable difference in virtual pass rates between these two types of schools. General Education schools had a 65% virtual pass rate, whereas Alternative Education schools had a 42% virtual pass rate (see Table B11 and Table F5), though this varied by entity type. LEA schools, for instance, had a 74% virtual pass rate for General Education schools and a 44% virtual pass rate for Alternative Education schools. See Table B12.

By Number of Virtual Enrollments

Over half of schools with virtual enrollments (55%) had 100 or more virtual enrollments. These schools were responsible for 98% of the virtual enrollments. As has been observed in previous years, schools with less than 10 virtual enrollments were the next highest percentage of schools with 18%; however, they only generated .1% of the virtual enrollments. See Table B13. Another trend that continued was that, in general, schools with fewer virtual enrollments per student performed better. Consider, for instance, that 36% of schools with an average of one to two virtual enrollments per virtual learner had a virtual pass rate of 90% to 100%, whereas only 15% of schools with an average of four or more virtual courses per virtual learner had a 90% to 100% pass rate. See Table B14.

By Locale

Rural schools represented about 34% of schools with virtual enrollments. Suburban settings provided the second most schools with 31%. Suburban schools, however, tallied the largest percentage of the virtual enrollments at 31%. All four locales had more than 100,000 virtual enrollments. See Table B15. In each of the four locales, schools with 100 or more virtual enrollments accounted for the largest percentage of schools. Similarly, schools with less than 25 virtual enrollments was the second most likely scenario. See Table B16. Virtual pass rates varied by locale with suburban schools having the highest virtual pass rate at 60% and those not specified having the lowest at 50%. Both city schools (16%) and those not specified (27%) had the highest percentage of schools with pass rates less than 20%. See Tables B17 and B18.

Courses

Fast Facts

  • 639,130 virtual enrollments were taken by Michigan K-12 students; the overall pass rate for virtual enrollments was 55%.
  • Virtual enrollments were spread across 931 different course titles.
  • 66% of virtual enrollments occurred in the core subject areas of English Language and Literature, Mathematics, Life and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and History.
  • The course titles with the highest enrollments for each core subject were:
    • English Language and Literature: English 9, English 10, English 11, and English 12
    • Mathematics: Geometry, Algebra II, Algebra I, and Consumer Math
    • Life and Physical Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physical Science
    • Social Sciences and History: U.S. History—Comprehensive, Economics, World History and Geography, World History—Overview
  • The virtual pass rates for each core subject were:
    • English Language and Literature: 51%
    • Mathematics: 49%
    • Life and Physical Sciences: 51%
    • Social Sciences and History: 55%
  • 29 different Advanced Placement (AP) courses were taken virtually.
  • The percentage of enrollments was fairly consistent by subject area across rural, town, suburban, and city schools.
  • Online courses (defined as including a teacher in the virtual environment) produced 82% of the virtual enrollments. Digital learning (without a teacher in the virtual environment) and blended learning (some virtual, some face-to face instruction) each accounted for about 9% and 8% of the virtual enrollments, respectively.

Number of Courses

The 639,130 virtual enrollments came from 931 different course titles, as determined by unique SCED codes.

Courses by Subject Area

English Language and Literature was the subject area with the highest virtual enrollment with 119,337 enrollments – 19% of all virtual enrollments. Mathematics, Social Sciences and History, and Life and Physical Sciences were the other subject areas with 10% or more of the virtual enrollments. In high enrollment subject areas (greater than 25,000 virtual enrollments), virtual pass rates varied from a low of 49% in Mathematics to a high of 65% for Miscellaneous. See Table C1 and Table F6. The virtual pass rates were consistently lower than the non-virtual pass rate for the virtual learners in their non-virtual courses, a trend observed in past years. See Table C2.

Highest Virtual Enrollment Courses

For English Language and Literature, the most highly enrolled in virtual courses were 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English/Language Arts. Of those four, the pass rate was lowest for 9th grade English/Language Arts (39%) and consistently rose for each subsequent grade level to finish at 55% for 12th grade English/Language Arts. See Table C3. In Mathematics, Geometry, Algebra II, and Algebra I were the virtual courses with the highest enrollments. The pass rate across the top 10 most enrolled-in virtual mathematics courses ranged from a low of 35% for Algebra I to a high of 64% for Consumer Math. See Table C4. Biology, Chemistry, and Earth Science were the three course titles responsible for more than 10% of the virtual enrollments in Life and Physical Sciences courses. A quarter of all Life and Physical Sciences virtual courses were taken in Biology. Biology also had the lowest pass rate (42%) of those in the top 10; the highest was Science (grade 8) at 62%. See Table C5. For Social Sciences and History, the four course titles of U.S. History–Comprehensive, Economics, World History and Geography, and World History–Overview each yielded more than 10% of the virtual enrollments. Pass rates for the top 10 most enrolled in courses ranged from a low of 41% in World History and Geography to a high of 65% for Psychology. See Table C6. Twenty-nine AP courses were taken virtually in 2018-19. AP Psychology was the most popular course accounting for 22% of the 3,742 AP enrollments. The pass rate for AP courses taken virtually was 84%. See Table C7. The pass rate for non-virtual AP courses taken by virtual learners was 93%.

Subject Area Enrollments by Locale

Course enrollment patterns were consistent across locales. For instance, Mathematics represented between 16% and 18% of the virtual enrollments for all (rural, town, suburban, city, and not specified) locales. The range was also 3% (11% to 14%) for Life and Physical Sciences and 7% in English Language and Literature. See Table C8. Pass rates in virtual courses also varied across subject areas and locale. For instance, in English Language and Literature, pass rates fell between 39% for not specified schools to 56% for suburban schools. In Mathematics, pass rates ranged from 35% (not specified) to 53% (suburban). See Table C9.

Subject Area Enrollments by Student Sex

Males and females enrolled in subject areas in similar proportions. In the four highest enrollment subject areas (English Language and Literature, Mathematics, Life and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and History), the proportion of enrollment from males and females was within one percent of each other. Pass rates did, however, show more variability by student sex; in most cases, females outperformed males – a trend that has been consistent with past years. See Table C10.

Courses by Virtual Method

Schools classified the virtual courses into one of three methods: Blended Learning, Digital Learning, or Online Learning. See page 402 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 1.0.

  • Blended Learning – A hybrid instructional delivery model where pupils are provided content, instruction, and assessment at a supervised educational facility where the pupil and teacher are in the same physical location and in part through internet-connected learning environments with some degree of pupil control over time, location, and pace of instruction. For a course to be considered blended, at least 30% of the course content is delivered online.
  • Digital Learning – A course of study that is capable of generating a credit or a grade that is provided in an interactive internet-connected learning environment that does not contain an instructor within the online environment itself. There may be a teacher of record assigned to the course, but this teacher does not provide instruction to students through the online environment. For a course to be considered online as opposed to blended, all (or almost all) the course content is delivered online.
  • Online Course – A course of study that is capable of generating a credit or a grade that is provided in an interactive internet-connected learning environment, where pupils are separated from their teachers by time or location, or both. For a course to be considered online as opposed to blended, all (or almost all) the course content is delivered online.

Blended Learning enrollments accounted for 8% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 49%. Digital Learning totaled 9% of the enrollments with a 54% pass rate. Online courses represented the majority of the enrollments (82%) and yielded a pass rate of 55%. See Table C11.

Students

Fast Facts

  • 120,669 K-12 students took at least one virtual course which represented 8% of Michigan public school students.
  • 85% of virtual learners were in high school; 33% were seniors and 21% were juniors.
  • 49% of virtual learners passed all their virtual courses. Twenty-three percent of virtual learners did not pass any of their virtual courses.
  • Of the 27,663 students who did not pass any of their virtual courses, 41% took only one or two courses. Over 12,550 students took and did not pass five or more virtual courses with 3,778 students taking and not passing 11 or more virtual courses.
  • Female students had a higher pass rate (57%) than did males (53%).
  • Students in poverty made up the majority of virtual learners (57%) and virtual enrollments (66%). Students in poverty also had a lower pass rate (48% v. 69%).
  • Part-time virtual learners had higher pass rates (60%) compared to full-time virtual learners (49%). This also included student in poverty (52% v. 43%).
  • Students using special education services made up 11% of the virtual learners.
  • Pass rates were higher for students taking fewer virtual courses. Students taking one or two virtual courses had a 76% pass rate compared to 51% for those taking five or more.
  • White students represented 68% of virtual students; African-Americans were 17%.

By Grade Level

For the 2018-19 school year, 120,669 Michigan K-12 students, approximately 8% of students in the state, took at least one virtual course. This was a 7% increase in the number of virtual learners compared to what was reported for 2017-18. Only about 7% of the state’s virtual learners were in grades K-5. Grades 6-8 were responsible for about 9% of the virtual learners. High school grade levels generated 85% of the virtual learners. About 33% of virtual learners were high school seniors and 21% were juniors. See Table D1.

By Student Sex

There were slightly more females (61,089) enrolled in virtual courses than males (59,593), though from a percentage perspective, each represented about half of the population. Females had a 4% higher pass rate (57% compared to males at 53%), continuing the trend seen in past years of females outperforming their male counterparts on this measure. See Table D2 and Table F7.

By Race/Ethnicity

White students made up 68% of virtual students with African American students totaling the second highest percentage with 17%. Asian students had the only pass rate (76%) above 60%. See Table D3 and Table F8.

By Poverty Status

Fifty-seven percent of virtual learners were classified as living in poverty. This is about 7% higher than the percentage of K-12 students statewide who were eligible for free or reduced lunch (50%) in the fall of 2018. See the Fall State Free and Reduced Lunch Count file for the 2018-19 school year. Students living in poverty took 66% of the virtual enrollments for the year. This is the same percentage as the prior year. The pass rate for students in poverty (48%) was 21 percentage points lower than students who were not in poverty (69%). See Table D4 and Table F9. In addition to the performance gap between those in poverty and those not in poverty, there were also differences in non-virtual pass rates. Virtual learners in poverty had a 68% pass rate in their non-virtual courses, 20 percentage points better than their virtual pass rate. Interestingly, students not in poverty had an 85% pass rate in their non-virtual courses, an improvement of 16 percentage points over their virtual pass rate. Thus, students in poverty had a larger performance gap between their virtual and non-virtual pass rates than did students who were not in poverty. See Table D5. Differences were apparent by virtual type. Sixty-seven percent of full-time virtual learners were in poverty compared to 54% of part-time virtual learners. The pass rate for full-time virtual learners in poverty was 43% compared to 52% for part-time virtual learners. See Table D6.

By Special Education Status

Students using special education services made up 11% of the virtual learners and 13% of the virtual enrollments. These percentages are somewhat similar to the statewide percentage of students using special education services (13.3%) for the 2018-19 school year. See the 2018-19 Special Education Data Portraits: Disability Snapshot. Students using special education services had a virtual pass rate of 48% compared to 56% for those who did not. See Table D7 and Table F10.

By Full-Time or Part-Time

About a quarter of students (31,176) were enrolled in cyber or full-time virtual schools. Students in these schools accounted for 295,234 or 46% of the virtual enrollments for the year. The pass rate for full-time virtual students was 49%. Three out for four virtual learning students are part-time virtual learners, taking some courses virtually to supplement their face-to-face schedule. This subset made up 54% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 60%. See Table D8. This rate is about 16% lower than their pass rate in face-to-face courses (76%). See Table D9.

By Non-Virtual Course Performance

Part-time virtual learners with at least three non-virtual courses were classified into one of three categories based on their success in those non-virtual courses. The three categories were:

  • Passed all Non-Virtual Courses
  • Did Not Pass 1 or 2 Non-Virtual Courses
  • Did Not Pass 3 or More Non-Virtual Courses

In total, 62% of virtual learners had at least three or more non-virtual enrollments. Of that group, 47% of students passed all their non-virtual courses, 19% did not pass one or two, and 34% did not pass three or more. There were clear differences in virtual pass rates between the three categories. Students passing all of their non-virtual courses had an 82% virtual pass rate. Students who did not pass one or two non-virtual courses had a virtual pass rate of 67%, and those with the lowest non-virtual success had a virtual pass rate of only 39%. See Table D10.

By Virtual Course Performance

Forty-nine percent of virtual learners passed every virtual enrollment they took. Twenty-three percent did not pass any of their virtual enrollments, and 28% passed some, but not all of their virtual enrollments. Students who passed all of their virtual courses were responsible for 31% of the virtual enrollments. Students with mixed success generated 48% of the enrollments, and students who did not pass any of their virtual courses contributed 21% of the virtual enrollments. These statistics are remarkably similar to last year. See Table D11.

For the students who did not pass any of their virtual courses, 41% only took one or two virtual courses. On the other hand, 12,559 students did not pass five or more virtual courses, and a staggering 3,778 students did not pass 11 or more virtual courses. Further analysis of students failing all of their 11 or more virtual courses showed 87% of these students had a single school report data for them. Over 2,500 of these students were primarily or exclusively enrolled through full-time virtual programs. Over 560 students were using special education services (15%) and slightly fewer than 3,100 of these students (81%) were in poverty. See Table D12 and Table F11.

What Table F11 makes clear is that for students who do not pass any of their virtual enrollments, “withdrawns” and “incompletes” were rampant. For the virtual enrollments from students who did not pass any of their virtual enrollments, 47% had a “Withdrawn” status (exited, failing, or passing) and another 20% were classified as “Incomplete.” For those taking 11 or more virtual courses, 44% had a “Withdrawn” status and 23% were marked “Incomplete”. In each case, only 28% and 30% of the virtual enrollments, respectively, were actually classified as “Completed/Failed.” Please see the section on Pass Rate Calculations for more elaboration on the impact of such issues on pass rates.

By Virtual Usage

Generally speaking, virtual learners did better when they took fewer virtual courses. Students taking one to two virtual courses had a pass rate of 76% compared to a pass rate of 64% for those taking three to four virtual courses and a pass rate of 51% for students taking five or more virtual courses. About 44% of students fell under the description of taking one or two virtual courses; however, 42% were found to have taken five or more virtual courses during the year. See Table D13.

State Assessment

Fast Facts

  • 44% of 11th grade virtual learners who took the SAT were proficient in the Reading/Writing component. A quarter tested proficient in Math.
  • Higher proficiency rates were seen with higher non-virtual performance and with students who were not in poverty.
  • A higher percentage of part-time virtual learners reached levels of proficiency on state assessment measures than their full-time counterparts.

By Subject Area

State assessment data can be used to provide an independent measure of student performance. Based on SAT and M-STEP data from students in 11th grade, virtual learners showed lower percentages reaching proficiency on the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (SAT), Mathematics (SAT), and Social Studies (M-STEP) examinations than the statewide proficiency rates. Forty-four percent of the 11th grade virtual learners tested proficient in Evidence-Based Reading and Writing and about a quarter were proficient in Mathematics. For Social Studies, 37% of the virtual learners reach proficiency. See Table E1.

By Non-Virtual Performance

As would be expected, the percentage of virtual learners testing proficient on these state tests varied considerably when accounting for their non-virtual performance. For instance, students taking a minimum of three non-virtual courses and passing all of them had proficiency rates that exceeded the statewide average for each of tests. Students who did not pass one or two of their non-virtual courses and those not passing three or more of their non-virtual courses had much lower rates of proficiency. See Table E2.

By Poverty Status

Students in poverty consistently recorded proficiency rates that were about 30 percentage points lower than their peers who were not in poverty. As an example, 29% of virtual learners in poverty scored proficient on the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing exam compared to 60% for those who were not in poverty. See Table E3.

By Full- or Part-Time Type

Students taking virtual courses in a part-time capacity had higher rates of proficiency on the assessments compared to full-time virtual learners. The gap was sizable; ranging from a high of 19 percentage points on the mathematics assessment to a low of 14 on the social studies exam. See Table E4.

Maps

Alpena-Montmorency-Alcona, Berrien, COOR, Gogebic-Ontonagon, Jackson, St. Joseph, and Tuscola ISDs/RESAs had at least 15% of students in their service areas take a virtual course in 2018-19. In total, there were 22 ISDs/RESA with 10% or more of the students taking virtual courses. See Figure 2.

Map shows Michigan ISDs colored by the percentage of students who took at least one virtual courses. All but four ISDs have some color of blue meaning they have at least 5% of more of their students taking a virtual course (non-cyber) in 2018-19. In contrast, 22 ISDs had 10% or more of its students with virtual enrollments; see the preceding paragraph for more detail.   Figure 2. 2018-19 Percentage of Students Who Took a Virtual Course (Non-Cyber) by ISD

One in five students attending a PSA cyber school resided within the Wayne RESA service area. The Macomb and Oakland ISD service area were the only other ISDs with 1,000 or more students attending PSA cyber schools. Genesee, Kent, and Ingham ISDs each had between 500 and less than 1,000 students from their area attending PSA cyber schools. See Figure 3.

Map shows Michigan ISDs colored by the percentage of PSA cyber students by resident ISD. The majority of counties are white meaning they have less than 100 PSA cyber students in 2018-19. Counties with the highest percentage cluster around the Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Ingham, and Kent counties. Figure 3. 2018-19 Count of PSA Cyber School Students by Resident ISD

Conclusion

This year’s report represents the ninth year of data on the effectiveness of virtual learning in Michigan’s K-12 system. Many trends witnessed in past years continue to exist. See Table 1. The use of virtual learning as evidenced by the number of virtual learners, virtual enrollments, and schools with virtual learners continues to grow. At the same time, performance in virtual courses has been stagnant over the past several years.

Table 1. Summary of Virtual Learning Metrics by School Year Since 2010-11
School Year # of Virtual Learners # of Virtual Enrollments # of Schools Virtual Pass Rate
2010-11 36,348 89,921 654 66%
2011-12 52,219 153,583 850 62%
2012-13 55,271 185,053 906 60%
2013-14 76,122 319,630 1,007 57%
2014-15 91,261 445,932 1,072 60%
2015-16 90,878 453,570 1,026 58%
2016-17 101,359 517,470 1,102 55%
2017-18 112,688 581,911 1,158 55%
2018-19 120,669 639,130 1,225 55%

The overall pass rate remains a reason for pessimism. Successful implementations of virtual learning are outnumbered by poorly performing programs, and there are too many students having little to no success. Almost a quarter of students did not pass any of their virtual courses with over 12,550 students taking at least five virtual courses and passing none of them. These practices need to stop. They need to be replaced by the practices at the more than 500 Michigan schools with virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. In these higher performing schools, the data show:

  • Successful virtual programs can support various numbers of students, enrollments, and courses offerings – These schools showed success with less than 10 students (36%) and more than 50 students (41%). Some offered few enrollments (over 100 schools had less than 10 virtual enrollments) while others offered many (over 200 schools had 100 or more). They also varied in the numbers of course titles offered. About 40% offered 10 or fewer virtual courses titles. About a quarter had between 26 and 50 courses, and over 10% of the schools had students in more than 50 different virtual courses.
  • LEA and PSA schools can offer successful virtual programs – Over 40 percent of LEA schools with virtual programs had schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. For PSA schools, it was about one out of every three. Both traditional school districts and charter districts can run successful virtual programs.
  • Schools in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural settings are proving virtual learning success – There were more than 75 city and 75 town schools with virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. There were just shy of 150 for suburban locales, and almost 190 of such schools in rural settings. These schools are proving virtual learning can succeed across the various geographies of the state.
  • These schools show strong results across students of different race/ethnicities – Whereas a sizable performance gap exists for students based on their race/ethnicity when looking at all virtual programs, those gaps close substantially for these 500+ schools. Consider that the pass rate for African-American or Black students is 90% in these schools (compared to 43% in the overall virtual population) and only lags the White virtual pass rate in these schools by 1% (compared to 16% in the overall virtual population). For each of the known race/ethnicities, the virtual pass rate ranges between 88% to 93% for these schools.
  • Students in poverty are succeeding in these virtual programs – Recall that across the entire state, students in poverty had a pass rate (48%) that was 21 percentage points lower than those virtual students who were not in poverty. For these 500+ schools, the virtual pass rate for students in poverty rose to 88% – much closer to the 92% virtual pass rate for the students who were not in poverty. Students in poverty continued to represent a large percentage of virtual learners (40%) in these schools, but quite a bit smaller than the 57% seen in all virtual programs across the state.
  • Both full- and part-time programs can run effective virtual programs – These 500+ schools show that over 40% of part-time programs were able to yield schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. It appears a bit more difficult for full-time programs, but 12 of the 79 full-time programs also achieved this success benchmark.
  • Both general education and alternative education programs reached 80% school-wide virtual pass rates – There were over 450 general education schools in Michigan that achieved schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. This was one out of every two general education schools with virtual programs. For alternative programs, 42 schools reached this mark. As a percentage of alternative programs, it represented just 14% of such schools, indicating that while possible, this threshold of success remains a sizable challenge.
  • Virtual students can perform at or above their face-to-face performance level – In these 500+ schools, there were over 6,000 virtual learners who took a minimum of three virtual courses and had data for a minimum of three non-virtual courses. Eighty-one percent of these students had virtual pass rates that met or exceeded their non-virtual pass rates.

Appendix A – Methodology

About the Data

The data for this report came from the following sources:

  • Michigan Student Data System – School Year 2018-2019;
  • Educational Entity Master (EEM);
  • Michigan Student Data System Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL) – Collection Year 2018-2019; and
  • Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2017-18 – Used for comparing this year’s data with the 2017-18 school year.

Because the data for this report incorporates this variety of sources, the findings within may differ from those found through the MI School Data portal which may use different query parameters.

The majority of enrollments classified as virtual in this report were treated as such due to the TSDL virtual method field indicating virtual delivery. However, this field is known to contain inaccuracies. For the purposes of this report, additional methods were used to identify enrollments with a high likelihood of having been delivered virtually. Each of the methods used, along with the percentage of enrollments it contributed to the total, are outlined below.

  • TSDL Virtual Method Flag = Yes. Enrollments where the TSDL virtual method field was set to “Blended Learning,” “Digital Learning,” or “Online Course” were treated as virtual. According to the TSDL Data Collection Manual, the virtual method field “indicates the type of virtual instruction the student is receiving. This could be virtual learning, online learning or computer courses; distance learning; or self-scheduled virtual learning” (see page 402 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 1.0). This strategy yielded 99% (631,667) of the virtual enrollments.
  • TSDL Local Course Title Field References Michigan Virtual. The strategy of searching the local course title field for common references to Michigan Virtual yielded less than 1% (864) of the virtual enrollments. The wild card search criteria for Michigan Virtual consisted of the following: ‘%MI Virtual%’, ‘%Mich Virt%’, ‘%MIVHS%’, ‘%MIVS%’, ‘%MVS%’, ‘%MVU%’, ‘%VH’, ‘%MVHS%’, ‘%MIVU%’, ‘%VHS%’, ‘MV%’, ‘%MV’, ‘%Michigan Virtual%’, ‘%IS: MV%’, ‘%IS:MV%’, ‘%MI Virt%’, ‘%MV HS%’, ‘Virtual HS%’, and ‘Mich. Virtual High School%’.
  • Local Course Title Field References Common Third Party Providers. Searching the local course title field for common references to known third-party providers of virtual courses yielded less than 1% (2,333) of the virtual enrollments. The wild card search criteria for common third-party providers consisted of the following: ‘%Apex%’, ‘APX%’, ‘%Aventa%’, ‘%BYU%’, ‘%Brigham%’, ‘%Compass%’, ‘%Edgen%’, ‘%2020%’, ‘%20/20%’, ‘%20-20%’, ‘%E20%’, ‘%Edison%’, ‘%FLVS%’, ‘%FVS%’, ‘%GenNet%’, ‘%Gen Net%’, ‘%K12 Virtual%’, ‘%K12:%’, ‘%K12vs%’, ‘%Lincoln Int%’, ‘%Little Lincoln%’, ‘%- Lincoln%’, ‘%(Lincoln)%’, ‘%Lincoln’, ‘%UNL%’, ‘%Middlebury%’, ‘%Nova net%’, ‘%Novanet%’, ‘%Odyssey%’,‘%Odware%’, ‘ODY%’, ‘%(OD%’, ‘%Edmentum%’, and ‘%Plato%’.
  • TSDL Local Course Title Field References Common Generic Labels for Online or Virtual Learning. Searching the local course title field for common references to online, distance, or virtual learning yielded less than 1% (4,266) of the virtual enrollments. The wild card search criteria for common generic labels for online or virtual learning consisted of the following: ‘%Online%’, ‘%On-line%’, ‘%On line%’, ‘%onl’, ‘%onli’, ‘%onlin’, ‘%- OL’, ‘%-OL’, ‘%O/L%’, ‘OL %’, ‘%STW%’, ‘%E-Learn%’, ‘%E-LRN%’, ‘%Virtual%’, ‘%- virt%’, and ‘%- DL’.

Michigan Virtual Students

In past years of this report, data on Michigan Virtual students were presented with two known issues. First, because Michigan Virtual is not a school entity and its data are not part of the state data sets, Michigan Virtual and CEPI used a matching process to attempt to tie the records together. This was always an imperfect matching process where some students taking Michigan Virtual courses were not able to be linked in the data set and, therefore, under-reported on students taking courses with Michigan Virtual. The second issue was that even when the process yielded a match for a student, it could not be determined which virtual courses the student took with Michigan Virtual as opposed to another course provider. Faced with that dilemma, the approach taken was to count all virtually delivered enrollments for such students as being provided by Michigan Virtual, recognizing that not all were actually delivered by Michigan Virtual.

In preparing this year’s report, it was determined that the impact these two issues had on the data were significant enough to render the reporting value moot. However, Michigan Virtual’s Annual Report for 2018-19 does contain information on its student enrollments. For instance, data are provided on the number of students served (over 16,900), districts served (over 60% of LEA Districts), enrollments served (over 30,100) and its pass rate (82%). For more information about Michigan Virtual enrollments for the same school year as this report, please see that annual report.

Pass Rate Calculations

For this report, the pass rate was calculated based on the values recorded in the “Completion Status” field. For more information about the Completion Status field, including definitions for each status, see page 396 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 1.0. Column one of Table A1 displays the various statuses reported by schools for the virtual enrollments.

Table A1. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status
Completion Status # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 10,957 2%
Completed / Failed 99,927 16%
Completed / Passed 350,594 55%
Incomplete 65,162 10%
Ongoing Enrolled 42 0%
Testing Out 112 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 64,013 10%
Withdrawn / Failing 16,334 3%
Withdrawn / Passing 31,989 5%
Total 639,130 100%

Throughout this report, the pass rate calculated simply represents the percentage of virtual enrollments with a status of “Completed/Passed.” Notice that the percentage of enrollments with a “Completed/Passed” status in Table A1 matches the statewide pass rate. This pass rate formula remains consistent with past reports. Please keep in mind that calculating the pass rate in this manner will result in the lowest possible percentage.

To illustrate why this is, consider the completion status of “Audited (No Credit Issued).” These virtual enrollments are not “failures” per se; however, including these enrollments in the total counts adds to the formula’s denominator without impacting to the numerator, the effect of which is to lower the percentage of other completion statuses including “Completed/Passed.” Another example is enrollments with a completion status of “Incomplete.” About 10% of the virtual enrollments in this report were classified as “Incomplete.” As such, they are treated in the report’s pass rate formula as zero passes, even though some may eventually be awarded a passing status. Finally, it is unclear how to best treat enrollments with a “Withdrawn” status. For instance, 5% of the virtual enrollments in 2018-19 were marked as “Withdrawn/Passing,” meaning that the student was passing the course at the time the student was withdrawn. Should these enrollments be counted as failures? What about students whose enrollments were marked as “Withdrawn/Exited” (10% of the virtual enrollments)? There is no way to determine whether that exiting occurred in the first few weeks of class or the final weeks of class. The data do not provide insight into whether the student was reenrolled in a different course or whether it was too late for reenrollment in a credit-bearing opportunity for the student.

The research team raises these issues because they represent questions for which there are no definitive answers. In the end, the team decided to report the pass rate as the percentage of all virtual enrollments that were reported as “Completed/Passed.” To provide readers with a better idea of the impact of this approach, additional data tables are provided in Appendix F to allow interested readers in drawing their own conclusions and calculating their own formulas for many of the pass rates reported.

Data Limitations

Because of the methodology described above, some enrollments are counted as virtual in this report that should not be – either because they were mistakenly marked as virtual by the school and/or because the local course title searches implemented by the research team yielded false positives. On the other hand, it is also safe to assume that some enrollments that should have been marked as virtual were not, both because they were not correctly flagged by the school and because the local course title did not give an indication of its virtual nature that aligned with the conventions used in the strategies outlined above. Consequently, the figures in this report should be treated as estimates that, generally speaking, convey the trends observed for the school year.

One final caveat for interpreting the results published in this report: There is clear variability in what schools report to the state as a “course.” Some records align well with reporting conventions outlined by the U.S. Department of Education under their School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) (see the U.S. Department of Education’s School Codes for the Exchange of Data). However, a review of the data suggests that many schools submit course records that may be better described as course units or lessons. Hence, while one district may report a single course for a child, for instance, Algebra I, another school might submit five such records, all with the same subject areas and course identifier codes, but with different local course IDs. Table A2 provides a glimpse into such reporting variability. Consider the part-time schools. For that group, 48% of the students had 11 to 15 courses reported (including both virtual and non-virtual enrollments), but 21% of part-time students had more than that. This issue is pointed out to alert readers that not all courses likely represent a semester- or trimester-length unit.

Table A2. 2018-19 Percentage of Students by Total Student Course Counts (Virtual and Non-Virtual) and Full- or Part-Time Schools
Total Course Count by Student  Full-Time Part-Time 
1 to 5 12% 10%
6 to 10 29% 22%
11 to 15 43% 48%
16 to 20 11% 15%
21+ 5% 6%
Total 100% 100%

Appendix – B School Tables

Note: Clicking on the orange hyperlinked table number will return to the section of the report that discusses the table.

Table B1. 2018-19 Count and Pass Rate of K-12 Virtual Enrollments by Grade Level
Grade Level # of Enrolls % of Enrolls % Change Pass Rate % Change from 17-18
K 8,356 1% 11% 74% +4%
1 10,029 2% 23% 69% +2%
2 10,118 2% -4% 69% +8%
3 9,578 1% -4% 71% +0%
4 11,229 2% -3% 71% +2%
5 13,656 2% 16% 67% -2%
6 17,924 3% 6% 66% +1%
7 22,931 4% 0% 63% +0%
8 30,283 5% 5% 60% +1%
9 97,326 15% 8% 41% +0%
10 112,447 18% 10% 48% +2%
11 117,195 18% 13% 53% -2%
12 178,058 28% 13% 59% -3%
Total 639,130 100% 10% 55% 0%
Table B2. 2018-19 Pass Rate Comparison for Virtual Learners in Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses
Grade Level Virtual Pass Rate Non-Virtual Pass Rate
K 74% 51%
1 69% 65%
2 69% 67%
3 71% 55%
4 71% 59%
5 67% 72%
6 66% 81%
7 63% 68%
8 60% 69%
9 41% 66%
10 48% 73%
11 53% 79%
12 59% 81%
Total 55% 76%
Table B3. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Schools by School Pass Rate
School Pass Rate # of Schools % of Schools
0% to <10% 80 7%
10% to <20% 34 3%
20% to <30% 55 4%
30% to <40% 77 6%
40% to <50% 72 6%
50% to <60% 121 10%
60% to <70% 135 11%
70% to <80% 147 12%
80% to <90% 188 15%
90% to 100% 316 26%
Total 1,225 100%
Table B4. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Entity Type
Entity Type # of Schools % of Schools # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
ISD School 28 2% 8,420 1%
LEA School 1,072 88% 368,579 58%
LEA Unique Education Provider 15 1% 11,638 2%
PSA School 110 9% 250,493 39%
Total 1,225 100% 639,130 100%
Table B5. 2018-19 Virtual Pass Rate by Entity Type
Entity Type Pass Count # of Enrolls Pass Rate
ISD School 5,013 8,420 60%
LEA School 214,941 368,579 58%
LEA Unique Education Provider 8,060 11,638 69%
PSA School 122,580 250,493 49%
Total 350,594 639,130 55%
Table B6. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Full-Time (FT) Virtual or Cyber School
Entity Type # of FT Schools % of FT Schools
ISD School 1 1%
LEA School 59 75%
LEA Unique Education Provider 3 4%
PSA School 16 20%
Total 79 100%
Table B7. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Enrollments from Full-Time (FT) Virtual or Cyber Schools with Pass Rates
Entity Type # of FT Students % of FT Students # of FT Enrolls % of FT Enrolls Pass Rate
ISD School NR NR NR NR NR
LEA School 11,740 38% 92,885 31% 51%
LEA Unique Education Provider NR NR NR NR NR
PSA School 18,916 61% 199,694 68% 49%
Total 31,176 100% 295,234 100% 49%

Note: Data are not reported (NR) if there were less than 10 schools for that cell or to prevent calculating cell value.

Table B8. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Part-Time (PT) Virtual Schools
Entity Type # of PT Schools % of PT Schools
ISD School 27 2%
LEA School 1,013 88%
LEA Unique Education Provider 12 1%
PSA School 94 8%
Total 1,146 100%
Table B9. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Enrollments from Part-Time (PT) Virtual Schools with Pass Rates
Entity Type # of PT Students % of PT Students # of PT Enrolls % of PT Enrolls Pass Rate
ISD School 1,502 2% 7,698 2% 58%
LEA School 78,753 86% 275,694 80% 61%
LEA Unique Education Provider 2,164 2% 9,705 3% 80%
PSA School 9,433 10% 50,799 15% 50%
Total 91,181 100% 343,896 100% 60%
Table B10. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by School Emphasis
School Emphasis # of Schools % of Schools # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
Alternative Education 290 24% 277,894 43%
General Education 916 75% 357,347 56%
Reportable Program NR NR NR NR
Special Education 17 1% 3,829 1%
Vocational/CTE NR NR NR NR
Total 1,225 100% 639,130 100%

Note: Data are not reported (NR) if there were less than 10 schools for that cell or to prevent calculating cell value.

Table B11. 2018-19 Virtual Pass Rate by School Emphasis
School Emphasis Pass Count # of Enrolls Pass Rate
Alternative Education 115,960 277,894 42%
General Education 232,583 357,347 65%
Reportable Program NR NR NR
Special Education 1,992 3,829 52%
Vocational/CTE NR NR NR
Total 350,594 639,130 55%

Note: Data are not reported (NR) if there were less than 10 schools for that cell or to prevent calculating cell value.

Table B12. 2018-19 Virtual Pass Rates for General Education and Alternative Education Schools by Entity Type
Entity Type General Ed Pass Rate Alternative Ed Pass Rate
ISD School NR NR
LEA School 74% 44%
LEA Unique Education Provider NR 65%
PSA School 57% 30%
Total 65% 42%

Note: Data are not reported (NR) if there were less than 10 schools for that cell.

Table B13. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Number of Virtual Enrollments per School
# of Virtual Enrolls Per School # of Schools % of Schools # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
1 to 9 221 18% 897 0%
10 to 19 84 7% 1,187 0%
20 to 29 49 4% 1,195 0%
30 to 39 36 3% 1,250 0%
40 to 49 34 3% 1,510 0%
50 to 59 22 2% 1,198 0%
60 to 69 22 2% 1,417 0%
70 to 79 23 2% 1,702 0%
80 to 89 29 2% 2,474 0%
9o to 99 26 2% 2,454 0%
100+ 679 55% 623,846 98%
Total 1,225 100% 639,130 100%
Table B14. 2018-19 Percentage of Schools by Ratio of Virtual Courses to Student and School Pass Rate
School Pass Rate 1 to 2 Virtual Courses /  Learner 3 to 4 Virtual Courses / Learner 4+ Virtual Courses / Learner
0% to <10% 8% 5% 6%
10% to <20% 1% 3% 6%
20% to <30% 2% 3% 9%
30% to <40% 1% 4% 16%
40% to <50% 4% 4% 10%
50% to <60% 7% 10% 13%
60% to <70% 9% 13% 12%
70% to <80% 13% 16% 5%
80% to <90% 19% 18% 7%
90% to 100% 36% 23% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table B15. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Locale
Locale # of Schools % of Schools # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
City 188 15% 127,395 20%
Not Specified 37 3% 50,187 8%
Rural 422 34% 159,755 25%
Suburban 381 31% 195,895 31%
Town 197 16% 105,898 17%
Total 1,225 100% 639,130 100%
Table B16. 2018-19 Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by Virtual Enrollment Totals and Locale
Locale 1 to 24 Enrolls 25 to 49 Enrolls 50 to 74 Enrolls 75 to 99 Enrolls 100+ Enrolls Total
City 32% 9% 5% 2% 52% 100%
Not Specified 22% 5% 0% 3% 70% 100%
Rural 23% 10% 6% 8% 54% 100%
Sub 30% 6% 4% 4% 56% 100%
Town 26% 6% 4% 7% 58% 100%
Table B17. 2018-19 Virtual Pass Rate by Locale
Locale Pass Rate % Change from 17-18
City 51% 0%
Not Specified 50% +11%
Rural 51% -9%
Sub 60% +0%
Town 58% -1%
Total 55% 0%
Table B18. 2018-19 Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by Building Pass Rate and Locale
Locale 0% to 20% Pass Rate 20% to 40% Pass Rate 40% to 60% Pass Rate 60% to 80% Pass Rate 80% to 100% Pass Rate Total
City 16% 13% 15% 15% 40% 100%
Not Specified 27% 19% 11% 8% 35% 100%
Rural 7% 9% 14% 27% 43% 100%
Sub 9% 10% 18% 25% 39% 100%
Town 7% 13% 19% 23% 39% 100%

Appendix – C Course Tables

Note: Clicking on the orange hyperlinked table number will return to the section of the report that discusses the table.

Table C1. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Subject Area
Subject Area # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 960 0% 76%
Architecture and Construction 260 0% 79%
Business and Marketing 8,572 1% 69%
Communication and Audio / Visual Technology 3,285 1% 66%
Computer and Information Sciences 11,110 2% 59%
Engineering and Technology 4,203 1% 62%
English Language and Literature 119,337 19% 51%
Fine and Performing Arts 39,973 6% 60%
Foreign Language and Literature 37,669 6% 54%
Health Care Sciences 4,070 1% 61%
Hospitality and Tourism 935 0% 59%
Human Services 1,497 0% 80%
Life and Physical Sciences 86,673 14% 51%
Manufacturing 74 0% 78%
Mathematics 110,384 17% 49%
Military Science 134 0% 75%
Miscellaneous 52,657 8% 65%
Nonsubject Specific 713 0% 73%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education 48,431 8% 61%
Public, Protective, and Government Services 2,074 0% 68%
Religious Education and Theology 150 0% 87%
Social Sciences and History 105,844 17% 55%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics 125 0% 84%
Total 639,130 100% 55%
Table C2. 2018-19 Pass Rate Comparison for Virtual Learners for Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses by Subject Area
Subject Area Virtual Pass Rate Non-Virtual Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 76% 82%
Architecture and Construction 79% 84%
Business and Marketing 69% 84%
Communication and Audio / Visual Technology 66% 87%
Computer and Information Sciences 59% 79%
Engineering and Technology 62% 83%
English Language and Literature 51% 76%
Fine and Performing Arts 60% 84%
Foreign Language and Literature 54% 74%
Health Care Sciences 61% 87%
Hospitality and Tourism 59% 81%
Human Services 80% 87%
Life and Physical Sciences 51% 75%
Manufacturing 78% 81%
Mathematics 49% 72%
Military Science 75% 81%
Miscellaneous 65% 74%
Nonsubject Specific 73% 64%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education 61% 79%
Public, Protective, and Government Services 68% 86%
Religious Education and Theology 87% 90%
Social Sciences and History 55% 75%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics 84% 81%
Total 55% 76%
Table C3. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in English Language and Literature Courses
English Language and Literature Course Titles # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
English / Language Arts I (9th grade) 22,570 19% 39%
English / Language Arts II (10th grade) 20,599 17% 42%
English/Language Arts III (11th grade) 17,944 15% 51%
English/Language Arts IV (12th grade) 17,652 15% 55%
Language Arts (grade 8) 3,977 3% 55%
Language Arts (grade 5) 3,060 3% 56%
Language Arts (grade 7) 2,979 2% 56%
English Language and Literature – Other 2,488 2% 55%
Language Arts (grade 4) 2,335 2% 58%
American Literature 2,291 2% 56%
Total 95,895 80% 48%

Note: % of Enrolls based on the overall total of 119,337 for this subject area.

Table C4. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Mathematics Courses
Mathematics Course Titles # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Geometry 21,817 20% 44%
Algebra II 19,009 17% 49%
Algebra I 18,071 16% 35%
Consumer Math 7,533 7% 64%
Algebra I-Part 1 4,990 5% 38%
Pre-Algebra 4,611 4% 42%
Mathematics – Other 3,965 4% 47%
Mathematics (grade 7) 3,336 3% 59%
Mathematics (grade 8) 2,996 3% 53%
Algebra I—Part 2 2,926 3% 46%
Total 89,254 81% 46%

Note: % of Enrolls based on the overall total of 110,384 for this subject area.

Table C5. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Life and Physical Sciences Courses
Life and Physical Sciences Course Titles # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Biology 21,426 25% 42%
Chemistry 15,062 17% 48%
Earth Science 9,918 11% 43%
Physical Science 6,676 8% 48%
Physics 3,309 4% 58%
Earth/Space Science 3,234 4% 57%
Environmental Science 3,202 4% 59%
Life and Physical Sciences – Other 2,358 3% 56%
Earth and Space Science 1,946 2% 50%
Science (grade 8) 1,878 2% 62%
Total 69,009 80% 48%

Note: % of Enrolls based on the overall total of 86,673 for this subject area.

Table C6. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Social Sciences and History Courses
Social Sciences and History Course Titles # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
U.S. History – Comprehensive 16,718 16% 50%
Economics 12,200 12% 56%
World History and Geography 11,855 11% 41%
World History—Overview 11,671 11% 53%
U.S. Government – Comprehensive 7,185 7% 56%
Psychology 5,010 5% 65%
Civics 4,885 5% 47%
Modern U.S. History 3,574 3% 50%
Sociology 3,002 3% 62%
U.S. History—Other 2,701 3% 42%
Total 78,801 74% 52%

Note: % of Enrolls based on the overall total of 105,844 for this subject area.

Table C7. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate for AP Courses
AP Course Title # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
AP Art-History of Art 54 1% 72%
AP Biology 167 4% 80%
AP Calculus AB 137 4% 85%
AP Calculus BC 92 2% 88%
AP Chemistry 137 4% 92%
AP Comparative Government and Politics 5 0% NR
AP Computer Science A 221 6% 91%
AP Computer Science AB 32 1% 84%
AP Economics 9 0% NR
AP English Language and Composition 219 6% 88%
AP English Literature and Composition 251 7% 84%
AP Environmental Science 106 3% 83%
AP European History 6 0% NR
AP French Language and Culture 23 1% NR
AP Government 47 1% 62%
AP Human Geography 52 1% 100%
AP Macroeconomics 213 6% 87%
AP Microeconomics 189 5% 88%
AP Music Theory 80 2% 40%
AP Physics B 77 2% 40%
AP Physics C 46 1% 100%
AP Psychology 809 22% 84%
AP Spanish Language and Culture 97 3% 74%
AP Statistics 243 6% 89%
AP Studio Art-Drawing Portfolio 1 0% NR
AP Studio Art-General Portfolio 3 0% NR
AP U.S. Government and Politics 77 2% 82%
AP U.S. History 197 5% 81%
AP World History 152 4% 79%
Total 3,742 100% 84%

Note: An additional 519 enrollments had a course type listed as Advanced Placement, but did not match an AP SCED Code. Similarly, there existed local course titles with AP in the title that did not have an AP SCED Code. Thus, it is very likely the data above underreports the number of students taking AP courses virtually. Pass Rates are not reported (NR) if there were less than 25 for that cell.

Table C8. 2018-19 Virtual Enrollments Percentage by Subject Area and Locale
Subject Area % City % Not Specified % Rural % Suburb % Town
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Architecture and Construction 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Business and Marketing 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Communication and Audio / Visual Technology 0% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Computer and Information Sciences 1% 2% 2% 2% 1%
Engineering and Technology 1% 1% 1% 0% 2%
English Language and Literature 20% 14% 19% 17% 21%
Fine and Performing Arts 7% 14% 19% 17% 21%
Foreign Language and Literature 5% 6% 7% 6% 5%
Health Care Sciences 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Hospitality and Tourism 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Human Services 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Life and Physical Sciences 14% 11% 14% 14% 14%
Manufacturing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Mathematics 17% 16% 18% 18% 17%
Military Science 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Miscellaneous 7% 11% 7% 9% 8%
Nonsubject Specific 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education 8% 13% 7% 6% 8%
Public, Protective, and Government Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Religious Education and Theology 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Social Sciences and History 17% 12% 18% 17% 17%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table C9. 2018-19 Virtual Enrollment Pass Rates by Subject Area and Locale
Subject Area City Pass Rate Not Specified Pass Rate Rural Pass Rate Suburb Pass Rate Town Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 78% NR 71% 78% 85%
Architecture and Construction NR NR 86% 24% 96%
Business and Marketing 58% 42% 71% 70% 77%
Communication and Audio / Visual Technology 59% 46% 73% 65% 77%
Computer and Information Sciences 35% 51% 62% 65% 72%
Engineering and Technology 56% 82% 46% 87% 93%
English Language and Literature 49% 39% 47% 56% 55%
Fine and Performing Arts 57% 70% 45% 65% 66%
Foreign Language and Literature 55% 41% 51% 56% 62%
Health Care Sciences 77% 48% 78% 45% 65%
Hospitality and Tourism 69% 47% 70% 49% 69%
Human Services 74% 49% 86% 72% 87%
Life and Physical Sciences 47% 40% 46% 59% 55%
Manufacturing NR NR 76% 79% NR
Mathematics 50% 35% 45% 53% 51%
Military Science NR NR NR 77% NR
Miscellaneous 55% 66% 63% 74% 61%
Nonsubject Specific 64% NR 32% 89% 91%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education 56% 68% 57% 64% 64%
Public, Protective, and Government Services 58% 63% 71% 64% 76%
Religious Education and Theology NR NR 92% 81% NR
Social Sciences and History 50% 39% 52% 62% 57%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics NR NR 78% 91% NR
Total 51% 50% 51% 60% 58%

Note: Data are not reported (NR) is there were less than 25 virtual enrollments for that cell.

Table C10. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Subject Area and Student Sex
Subject Area # of Male Enrolls # of Female Enrolls % of Male Enrolls % of Female Enrolls Male Pass Rate Female Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources 335 625 0% 0% 70% 80%
Architecture and Construction 216 44 0% 0% 76% 95%
Business and Marketing 4,195 4,377 1% 1% 68% 69%
Communication and Audio / Visual Technology 1,429 1,856 0% 1% 65% 68%
Computer and Information Sciences 6,656 4,454 2% 1% 60% 57%
Engineering and Technology 2,465 1,738 1% 1% 63% 60%
English Language and Literature 61,114 58,223 19% 18% 50% 53%
Fine and Performing Arts 18,768 20,393 6% 7% 57% 63%
Foreign Language and Literature 17,276 20,393 5% 6% 49% 58%
Health Care Sciences 1,230 2,840 0% 1% 45% 68%
Hospitality and Tourism 420 515 0% 0% 50% 66%
Human Services 342 1,155 0% 0% 80% 81%
Life and Physical Sciences 43,846 42,827 14% 13% 50% 53%
Manufacturing 64 10 0% 0% 78% NR
Mathematics 56,070 54,314 18% 17% 48% 49%
Military Science 71 63 0% 0% 76% 75%
Miscellaneous 26,093 26,564 8% 8% 64% 67%
Nonsubject Specific 381 332 0% 0% 72% 75%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education 23,719 24,712 7% 8% 59% 63%
Public, Protective, and Government Services 825 1,249 0% 0% 61% 72%
Religious Education and Theology 64 86 0% 0% 80% 92%
Social Sciences and History 51,453 54,391 16% 17% 53% 57%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics 98 27 0% 0% 84% 85%
Total 317,130 322,000 100% 100% 53% 57%

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were less than 25 virtual enrollments for that cell.

Table C11. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Virtual Method
Virtual Method # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Blended Learning 51,266 8% 49%
Digital Learning 57,092 9% 54%
Online Course 523,309 82% 55%
Missing 7,463 1% 54%
Total 639,130 100% 55%

Appendix – D Student Tables

Note: Clicking on the orange hyperlinked table number will return to the section of the report that discusses the table.

Table D1. 2018-19 Number of Virtual Students with Percent Year over Year Change
Grade Level # of Students % of Students % Change from 17-18
K 1,085 1% +21%
1 1,278 1% +36%
2 1,324 1% +18%
3 1,416 1% +23%
4 1,429 1% +14%
5 1,732 1% +23%
6 2,848 2% +21%
7 3,319 3% -3%
8 4,429 4% -4%
9 16,611 14% +3%
10 21,631 18% +6%
11 25,117 21% +8%
12 39,634 33% +7%
Total 120,669 100% +7%

Note: Because some students took courses across multiple grade levels, a student may be counted toward more than one grade level. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique students.

Table D2. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Student Sex
Student Sex # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Males 59,593 49% 317,130 50% 53%
Females 61,089 51% 322,000 50% 57%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%

Note: A few students had enrollments where their sex was listed as male on some, but female on others.

Table D3. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Race /Ethnicity # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
African American 20,073 17% 123,688 19% 43%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1,073 1% 5,375 1% 52%
Asian 2,279 2% 7,775 1% 76%
Hispanic or Latino 9,287 8% 52,457 8% 49%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 115 0% 445 0% 57%
White 82,103 68% 413,892 65% 59%
Two or More Races 5,280 4% 31,930 5% 51%
Unknown 1,069 1% 3,568 1% 34%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%

Note: The total number of students exceeds the 120,669 number because a few students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student as one race/ethnicity, but the other school reported a different value. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D4. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Poverty Status
Poverty Status # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Yes 68,666 57% 419,462 66% 48%
No 51,870 43% 219,105 34% 69%
Unknown 133 0% 563 0% 6%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%

Note: The total number of students exceeds the 120,669 number because a few students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student under a specific poverty status, but the other school left the status unknown. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D5. 2018-19 Pass Rate Comparison for Virtual Learners for Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses by Poverty Status
Poverty Status Virtual Pass Rate Non-Virtual Pass Rate Virtual Pass Rate – Non-Virtual Pass Rate
Yes 48% 68% -20%
No 69% 85% -16%
Unknown 6% 21% -15%
Total 55% 76% -21%
Table D6. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Learners and Virtual Enrollments in Poverty with Pass Rate by Virtual Type
Virtual Type % of Virtual Learners in Poverty % of Virtual Enrolls from Learners in Poverty Pass Rate for Virtual Learners in Poverty
Full-Time Virtual 67% 69% 43%
Part-Time Virtual 54% 63% 52%
Total 57% 66% 48%
Table D7. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Special Education Status
Special Education Status # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Yes 13,864 11% 83,328 13% 48%
No 106,031 88% 552,234 86% 56%
Unknown 1,069 1% 3,568 1% 34%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%

Note: The total number of students exceeds the 120,669 number because a few students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student under a specific special education status, but the other school left the status unknown. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D8. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Full- or Part-Time Status
Virtual Subset # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Full-Time – Virtual 31,176 26% 295,234 46% 49%
Part-Time Virtual 91,181 76% 343,896 54% 60%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%
Table D9. 2018-19 Pass Rate Comparison for Full- and Part-Time Virtual Learners
Virtual Subset Virtual Pass Rate Non-Virtual Pass Rate
Full-Time Virtual 49% NA
Part-Time Virtual 60% 76%
Total 55% 76%
Table D10. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Non-Virtual Performance (Minimum of 3 Non-Virtual Enrollments)
Non-Virtual Performance # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Passed All NV Courses 35,490 47% 83,557 35% 82%
Did Not Pass 1 or 2 NV Courses 14,398 19% 43,049 18% 67%
Did Not Pass 3 or More NV Courses 25,278 34% 114,340 47% 39%
Total 75,166 100% 240,946 100% 59%
Table D11. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments by Virtual Course Performance
Virtual Course Performance # of Students % of Students # of  Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
Passed All 59,188 49% 196,323 31% 100%
Passed Some, But Not All 33,818 28% 305,701 48% 50%
Didn’t Pass Any 27,663 23% 137,106 21% 0%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%
Table D12. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students Who Did Not Pass Any Virtual Courses by the Number of Virtual Courses They Took
# of Virtual Courses Not Passed # of Students % of Students
1 to 2 11,367 41%
3 to 4 3,737 14%
5 to 6 5,105 18%
7 to 8 2,310 8%
9 to 10 1,366 5%
11+ 3,778 14%
Total 27,663 100%
Table D13. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Virtual Usage
Virtual Usage # of Students % of Students # of Enrolls % of Enrolls Pass Rate
1 to 2 Virtual Courses 53,619 44% 76,061 12% 76%
3 to 4 Virtual Courses 16,516 14% 57,254 9% 64%
5 or More Virtual Courses 50,534 42% 505,815 79% 51%
Total 120,669 100% 639,130 100% 55%

Appendix – E Completion Status Tables

Table E1. 2018-19 Comparison of Virtual and State Pass Rates on 11th Grade State Assessment Measures
Assessment Measure Virtual Pass Rate State Pass Rate
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT) 44% 55%
Mathematics (SAT) 25% 36%
Science (M-STEP) NR NR
Social Studies (M-STEP) 37% 47%

Note: Statewide assessment data were available from the MI School Data Portal

Table E2. 2018-19 State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners with Three or More Non-Virtual Enrollments by Non-Virtual Performance
Assessment Pass All NV Pass Rate Did Not Pass 1 or 2 NV Pass Rate Did Not Pass 3 or More NV Pass Rate
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT) 66% 38% 24%
Mathematics (SAT) 45% 18% 9%
Science (M-STEP) NR NR NR
Social Studies (M-STEP) 54% 32% 22%
Table E3. 2018-19 State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Poverty Status
Assessment Virt. Learners in Poverty Virt. Learners Not in Poverty All Virtual Learners
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT) 29% 60% 44%
Mathematics (SAT) 12% 39% 25%
Science (M-STEP) NR NR NR
Social Studies (M-STEP) 24% 51% 37%
Table E4. 2018-19 State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Virtual Type
Assessment Part-Time  Full-Time All Virtual
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT) 46% 30% 44%
Mathematics (SAT) 27% 8% 25%
Science (M-STEP) NR NR NR
Social Studies (M-STEP) 39% 25% 37%

Appendix – F Completion Status Tables

Table F1. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status
Completion Status # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 10,957 2%
Completed / Failed 99,927 16%
Completed / Passed 350,594 55%
Incomplete 65,162 10%
Ongoing Enrolled 42 0%
Testing Out 112 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 64,013 10%
Withdrawn / Failing 16,334 3%
Withdrawn / Passing 31,989 5%
Total 639,130 100%
Table F2. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Entity Type
Completion Status ISD School % of Enrolls LEA School % of Enrolls LEA UEP % of Enrolls PSA School % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 0% 3% 0% 1%
Completed / Failed 3% 16% 6% 16%
Completed / Passed 60% 58% 69% 49%
Incomplete 3% 10% 2% 11%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 28% 9% 19% 10%
Withdrawn / Failing 0% 1% 0% 6%
Withdrawn / Passing 5% 4% 2% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: UEP = Unique Education Provider CELL SUPPRESSION??????

Table F3. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Full-Time Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status
Completion Status # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 6,370 2%
Completed / Failed 44,470 15%
Completed / Passed 145,494 49%
Incomplete 35,678 12%
Ongoing Enrolled 0 0%
Testing Out 40 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 27,852 9%
Withdrawn / Failing 13,948 5%
Withdrawn / Passing 21,382 7%
Total 295,234 100%
Table F4. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Part-Time Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status
Completion Status # of Enrolls % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 4,587 1%
Completed / Failed 55,457 16%
Completed / Passed 205,100 60%
Incomplete 29,484 9%
Ongoing Enrolled 42 0%
Testing Out 72 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 36,161 11%
Withdrawn / Failing 2,386 1%
Withdrawn / Passing 10,607 3%
Total 343,896 100%
Table F5. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and School Emphasis
Completion Status Alt Ed % of Enrolls Gen Ed % of Enrolls Special Ed % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 3% 0% 0%
Completed / Failed 16% 16% 7%
Completed / Passed 42% 65% 52%
Incomplete 20% 3% 1%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 14% 7% 41%
Withdrawn / Failing 1% 3% 0%
Withdrawn / Passing 5% 5% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: Reportable Programs and Vocational/CTE are not reporting on here because each had less than 10 schools.

Table F6. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Core Subject Area
Completion Status English % of Enrolls Math % of Enrolls Science % of Enrolls Social Sci % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 2% 2% 2% 2%
Completed / Failed 17% 18% 17% 16%
Completed / Passed 51% 49% 51% 55%
Incomplete 11% 12% 12% 11%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 10% 11% 10% 10%
Withdrawn / Failing 3% 3% 3% 2%
Withdrawn / Passing 6% 5% 4% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table F7. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Student Sex
Completion Status Males % of Enrolls Females % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 2% 2%
Completed / Failed 17% 14%
Completed / Passed 53% 57%
Incomplete 10% 10%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 11% 9%
Withdrawn / Failing 3% 2%
Withdrawn / Passing 5% 5%
Total 100% 100%
Table F8. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Race / Ethnicity
Completion Status African American % of Enrolls American Indian or Alaska Native % of Enrolls Asian % of Enrolls Hispanic or Latino % of Enrolls White % of Enrolls Two or More Races % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Completed / Failed 20% 17% 8% 14% 15% 16%
Completed / Passed 43% 52% 76% 49% 59% 51%
Incomplete 12% 11% 3% 15% 9% 11%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 11% 13% 5% 12% 9% 11%
Withdrawn / Failing 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4%
Withdrawn / Passing 7% 4% 5% 5% 4% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Only Race / Ethnicities with 1,000 or more students are reported in the table.

Table F9. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Poverty Status
Completion Status In Poverty % of Enrolls Not In Poverty % of Enrolls Unknown % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 2% 1% 0%
Completed / Failed 18% 11% 3%
Completed / Passed 48% 69% 6%
Incomplete 12% 7% 18%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 12% 7% 40%
Withdrawn / Failing 3% 1% 9%
Withdrawn / Passing 6% 4% 23%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table F10. 2018-19 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Special Education Status
Completion Status In Special Ed % of Enrolls Not In Special Ed% of Enrolls Unknown % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 1% 2% 3%
Completed / Failed 20% 15% 8%
Completed / Passed 48% 56% 34%
Incomplete 8% 10% 23%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 12% 10% 19%
Withdrawn / Failing 4% 2% 4%
Withdrawn / Passing 6% 5% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table F11. 2018-19 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status for Students Who Did Not Pass Any of Their Virtual Courses
Completion Status At Least One % of Enrolls 11 or More % of Enrolls
Audited (No Credit  Issued) 4% 4%
Completed / Failed 28% 30%
Completed / Passed 0% 0%
Incomplete 20% 23%
Ongoing Enrolled 0% 0%
Testing Out 0% 0%
Withdrawn / Exited 28% 22%
Withdrawn / Failing 7% 7%
Withdrawn / Passing 12% 15%
Total 100% 100%

Keep up with the latest Michigan Virtual has to offer