Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2022-23

Past Effectiveness Reports 

Introduction

This report presents an 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 tenth edition of this annual publication and completes 12 years of data on K-12 virtual learning in Michigan.

The report is organized into several sections. 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

Number of Districts and Schools

For the 2022-23 school year, 607 districts reported having at least one virtual enrollment. This represented 68% of the 899 Michigan public school districts for the year. See the MI School Data Report for a breakdown of the district count. Within those districts, 1,475 schools reported virtual enrollments, 439 fewer than the prior year. When looking over the last two years, schools fell into three categories, which are also captured in Table B1:

• Leaving – 565 schools had virtual enrollments the prior year but did not report any virtual enrollments in 2022-2023. Last year, those schools accounted for a total of 320,775 virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 64%.
• Returning – 1,349 or 91% of schools in this year’s dataset reported virtual enrollments in both 2021-22 and 2022-2023. This year, these schools generated over 985,000 enrollments and had a pass rate of 66%, which was two percentage points lower than their rate in 2021-22.
• New – 126 schools reported virtual enrollments this year that did not last year. Those schools accounted for 41,391 enrollments with a pass rate of 42%.

246,496 of this year’s enrollments came from 23 schools that reported 1,000 or more enrollments than they did in 2021-22. On the other hand, 47 schools reported decreases of 1,000 or more virtual enrollments this year. Even with these declines, these schools yielded close to 160,000 virtual enrollments this year. See Table B2. These findings suggest continued volatility from the pandemic. About a quarter of schools in both years saw their pass rates increase by 10 or more percentage points from the prior year. See Table B3.

By Grade Level

There were 1,027,705 virtual enrollments across the 1,475 schools. Students in 12th grade generated the most virtual enrollments (235,542), representing 23% of all virtual enrollments. There continued to be a smaller percentage of high school virtual enrollments than before the pandemic. In the 2019-20 school year, 81% of the virtual enrollments came from students in high school; In 2020-21, the figure dropped to 40%. This year, the percentage of high school enrollments rebounded to reflect 68% of virtual enrollments. It seems likely that this percentage will continue moving upward over the next several years.

The overall pass rate for virtual enrollments was 65%, a decrease of 4 percentage points over the prior year. See Table G1 for a more specific breakdown of all the completion statuses. This ranged from a high of 87% in both first and second grade to a low of 48% in 9th grade. Interestingly, elementary grades tended to see small percent decreases in pass rates (one to two percentage points) whereas the middle school (6th, 7th, 8th) grades saw decreases of eight percentage points. Among the high school grades, 9th graders saw a decrease of one percentage point while 10th and 11th graders saw small increases (one and two percentage points respectively). See Table B4 for more information.

The fairly consistent pattern of a higher pass rate in non-virtual coursework continued. For 2022-23, virtual learners had a 65% pass rate in their virtual courses, but a 72% pass rate for their non-virtual coursework. See Table B5. As a pre-pandemic comparison, the 2019-20 school year virtual pass rate was 12 percentage points lower than those students’ non-virtual pass rate.

By School-Level Virtual Pass Rate

Of the 1,475 schools with virtual enrollments, 416 or 28% had school-level virtual pass rates of 90% to 100%. This was five percentage points higher than the prior year. Fifty-eight percent of the schools (855) had virtual pass rates of 70% or higher. This was five percentage points higher than the prior year. See Table B6. Thus, even though the overall pass rate in the state dropped year over year, a higher percentage of schools experienced high levels of student performance.

By Entity Type

LEA schools and PSA schools accounted for almost all the virtual enrollments with 64% and 34%, respectively. Virtual enrollments came from 1,306 (89%) LEA schools while only 122 (8%) of the schools were PSAs. See Table B7. LEA schools had a higher pass rate (67%) than PSA schools (61%), reversing a two-year pattern. See Table B8 or, for a more in-depth look at the completion statuses, see Table G2.

By Full-Time Virtual Schools

The number of full-time virtual schools (77) decreased by 17 from the prior year. Fifty-seven of the 77 full-time virtual schools (74%) were LEA schools. PSA schools (17) accounted for 22% of the full-time virtual schools. See Table B9. Despite the sizable difference in the number of schools, PSAs reported more virtual enrollments (64%) from full-time virtual students statewide compared to LEAs (36%). PSA full-time virtual learners saw higher virtual pass rates (61%) than their counterparts in LEA schools (58%). See Table B10 and Table G3. Overall, the number of virtual enrollments from full-time virtual schools dropped from 502,284 in 2021-22 to 449,188 this year. Approximately 44% percent of the virtual enrollments came from full-time virtual learners.

A quick note about full-time virtual schools: Historically, full-time virtual schools have only provided students with 100% of their learning online. Thus, it was safe to designate all enrollments from such a school as being part of a full-time virtual program. Over the last several years, however, LEAs have started to add full-time virtual options to their offerings. In some cases, this is as a separate school, which makes it analogous to cyber schools. However, it seems that schools are increasingly offering multiple forms of online learning (“Full Virtual,” “Face Virtual,” and “Supplemental Virtual”) from the same building code. See page 15 of the Educational Entity Master Glossary for more information on these field values. This means that some schools report various forms of virtual (and sometimes non-virtual) learning from a single building code. Case in point, 10% of the enrollments from virtual learners in LEA full-time programs were not flagged as being delivered virtually, indicating what may be more of a hybrid approach.

By Part-Time Virtual Schools

About 95% of the schools offering virtual learning do so to supplement their face-to-face course offerings. These 1,398 schools, referred to in this report as part-time virtual schools, were predominantly LEA schools (89%). See Table B11. Eighty-nine percent of the part-time virtual students were enrolled through LEA schools and 8% through PSA schools. LEA schools accounted for 500,294 virtual enrollments or 86% of the part-time enrollments. In total, enrollments from part-time virtual schools accounted for 56% of all the virtual enrollments for the year. LEA schools had a pass rate of 69% whereas PSA schools had a pass rate of 57%. Overall, the pass rate for the part-time virtual schools (68%) was eight percentage points higher than the rate for the full-time virtual schools (60%). See Table B12 and Table G4.

By School Emphasis

Eighty percent of schools with virtual learning were designated as General Education and produced 650,830 (63%) virtual enrollments. Schools with Alternative Education as their emphasis accounted for almost 374,298 (36%) of the virtual enrollments. See Table B13. There was a considerable difference in virtual pass rates between these two types of schools. General Education schools had a 73% virtual pass rate, whereas Alternative Education schools had a 50% virtual pass rate (see Table B14 and Table G5), though this varied by entity type. LEA schools, for instance, had a 77% virtual pass rate for General Education schools and a 52% virtual pass rate for Alternative Education schools. See Table B15.

By Number of Virtual Enrollments

Fifty-three percent of schools with virtual enrollments had 100 or more virtual enrollments. These schools were responsible for 98% of the virtual enrollments (1,006,319). See Table B16.

Another trend that continued was that, in general, schools with fewer virtual enrollments per student performed better. Consider, for instance, that 40% 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 23% of schools with an average of five or more virtual courses per virtual learner had a 90% to 100% pass rate. See Table B17.

By Locale

Suburban schools represented 38% of schools with virtual enrollments. Rural settings provided the second most schools with 33%. Suburban schools also tallied the largest percentage of the virtual enrollments at 37%. Rural schools were the next closest providing 28% of the enrollments. See Table B18. In each of the four locales, schools with 100 or more virtual enrollments accounted for the largest percentage of schools. See Table B19. Virtual pass rates varied by locale with City schools having the highest virtual pass rate at 73% and Rural schools having the lowest at 62%. See Table B20. On the other hand, Rural schools had 47% of their schools achieve building-wide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. The next closest were Suburban schools with 45% achieving building-wide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. See Table B21. For more information about locales, including definitions, please see pages 23-24 of the Educational Entity Master Glossary.

By School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Categories

Schools were categorized into one of four categories based on the percentage of all learners at the school (not just virtual learners) that qualified for free or reduced-price (FRL) meals:

• Low FRL (<=25%)
• Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)
• Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)
• High FRL (>75%)

None of the categories had 50% or more of its schools report virtual learners. Mid-low FRL had the highest percentage at 47%. This reverses the numbers observed last year, where all categories had 50% or more of its schools report virtual learners and is more closely aligned with the percentages from 2019-2020 where the percent of schools with virtual learners for each category was less than 50%. The higher numbers of schools from each category with virtual learners may be attributable to the pandemic, and numbers will likely stabilize in the coming years. See Table B22.

While High FRL schools represented only 37% of schools with virtual programs (369), they accounted for 45% of the virtual enrollments. Mid-High FRL schools accounted for 33% of the enrollments. Low FRL schools, on the other hand, reported less than 10% of the virtual enrollments. The virtual pass rate for Low FRL schools was 86% compared to 60% for Mid-High FRL and 59% for High FRL schools. See Table B23.

Courses

Number of Courses

The 1,027,705 virtual enrollments came from 1,051 different course titles, as determined by unique SCED codes.

Courses by Subject Area

English Language and Literature was the subject area with the highest number of virtual enrollments (192,171)—19% of all virtual enrollments. Mathematics, Social Sciences and History, and Life and Physical Sciences were the next highest enrollment subject areas, each with 15-17% of the virtual enrollments. In high enrollment subject areas (greater than 75,000 virtual enrollments), virtual pass rates varied from a low of 60% in Mathematics to a high of 71% for Visual and Performing Arts. See Table C1 and Table G6. Only four of the 23 subject areas (Architecture and Construction, Engineering and Technology, Manufacturing, and Religious Education and Theology) had virtual pass rates that were equal to or greater than the non-virtual pass rates for these students. See Table C2. In the years right before the pandemic, only about one or two of the subject areas saw equal to or better performance in the virtual courses.

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 (48%) and rose consistently for each subsequent grade level to finish at 63% for 12th grade English/Language Arts. Three course titles were at the 6-8 grade level and another two were K-5 with the remaining course being multi-grade. See Table C3.

In Mathematics, Geometry, Algebra I, and Algebra II had the most enrollments, each having over 25,000. Middle school Mathematics courses ranged from 6,700 to 7,800 enrollments. The pass rate across the top 10 most enrolled-in virtual mathematics courses ranged from a low of 44% for Algebra I to a high of 80% in Mathematics (grade 5). See Table C4.

Biology (32,460), Chemistry (20,496), and Earth Science (14,679) were the only course titles responsible for 10% or more of the virtual enrollments in Life and Physical Sciences courses. Two others—Physical Science and Earth and Space Science—had more than 7,000 enrollments each. Earth Science had the lowest pass rate (53%) of those in the top 10; the highest was 71% in Science (grade 6). See Table C5.

For Social Sciences and History, both U.S. History–Comprehensive (21,584) and World History and Geography (16,519) yielded 10% or more of the virtual enrollments. Three other titles had more than 10,000 enrollments (Economics, World History—Overview, and U.S. Government—Comprehensive). Pass rates for the top 10 most enrolled in courses ranged from a low of 52% in World History and Geography to a high of 70% in Psychology. See Table C6.

Thirty-four AP courses were taken virtually in 2022-23. There were just over 4,000 virtual AP enrollments, down from 5,300 enrollments in the prior year. AP Psychology was the most popular course accounting for 15% of the enrollments. The pass rate for AP courses taken virtually was 87%. See Table C7. The pass rate for non-virtual AP courses taken by virtual learners was 94%.

Subject Area Enrollments by Locale

Course enrollment patterns were quite consistent across locales. For instance, each locale (Rural, Town, Suburb, and City) reported 15% of their enrollments in Life and Physical Sciences. In English Language and Literature, along with Mathematics, the difference across the locales was within one percentage point. See Table C8. However, pass rates in virtual courses varied across subject areas and locale. For instance, in English Language and Literature, the Rural pass rate was 60% while the pass rate from City schools was 72%. This trend of Rural schools lagging behind the performance of students in other locales was also true for the other core subjects of Mathematics, Life and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and History. See Table C9. Last year, Town schools followed this lowest performing locale trend.

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 the very same. Pass rates, however, showed more variability by student sex. In 17 of the 21 subject areas with reported pass rates for both sexes, females outperformed males—a trend that has been consistent in past years. Overall, females had a 66% virtual pass rate whereas males had a 64% pass rate. 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 pages 357 and 358 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 5.0.

• 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, 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 14% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 78%. Digital Learning totaled 7% of the enrollments with a 61% pass rate. Online courses represented most of the enrollments (79%) and yielded a pass rate of 63%. See Table C11.

Students

By Grade Level

For the 2022-23 school year, 159,056 Michigan K-12 students, approximately 11% of students in the state, took at least one virtual course. This change represents approximately a 25% decrease from the previous year, and a 62% decrease from 2020-21. Seventy-three percent of virtual learners came from the high school grades. Each elementary and middle school grade level tended to be around 2% to 5% of the virtual learners with each of the high school grade levels between 13% to 26%. See Table D1.

By Student Sex

There were slightly more females (81,236) enrolled in virtual courses than males (77,844), though from a percentage perspective, each represented about half of the population. Females had a 2% higher pass rate (66% compared to males at 64%), continuing the trend seen in past years of females outperforming their male counterparts on this measure. See Table D2 and Table G7.

By Race/Ethnicity

White students made up 63% of virtual students with African American or Black students totaling the second highest percentage with 19%. Asian students had the highest pass rate at 79%. See Table D3 and Table G8. These demographics are similar to the statewide K-12 demographics for 2022-23. See Student Enrollment Count Report.

By Poverty Status

Sixty-three percent of virtual learners were classified as living in poverty. This is the same as the prior year and nine percentage points higher than the percentage of K-12 students statewide who were economically disadvantaged. See Student Enrollment Count Report. Students living in poverty took 70% of the virtual enrollments for the year. The pass rate for students in poverty (60%) was 17 percentage points lower than students who were not in poverty (77%). See Table D4 and Table G9. In 2021-22, the performance gap was 14 percentage points.

Prior to the pandemic, the data consistently showed that students in poverty performed better in their non-virtual courses. The 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years deviated from that pattern. In 2021-22, we saw that students in poverty had a higher pass rate in their virtual courses (64%) than they did in their non-virtual courses (62%). For the 2022-23 year, this trend was reversed and students in poverty did better in their non-virtual courses (64% compared to 60%). Students not in poverty also performed better in their non-virtual courses (by eight percentage points). See Table D5.

Seventy-one percent of full-time virtual learners were in poverty compared to 60% for part-time virtual learners. The pass rate for full-time virtual learners in poverty was 56% compared to 63% for part-time virtual learners. See Table D6.

To get a sense of how the poverty level of schools might impact virtual learning patterns, we categorized schools into one of four categories based on the percentage of all learners at the school (not just virtual learners) that qualified for free or reduced-price (FRL) meals:

• Low FRL (<=25%)
• Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)
• Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)
• High FRL (>75%)

About 6% of all Michigan K-12 students who attended Low FRL schools were virtual learners. Nine percent of the state’s students in Mid-Low FRL, and 12% of those in Mid-High FRL schools were virtual learners. Seventeen percent of students in High FRL schools took virtual courses in the 2022-2023 school year. See Table D7. Although overall virtual enrollments have steadily decreased since pandemic highs, this trend has remained relatively stable. For 2020-21, 2021-22, and this current year, schools with higher percentages of students qualifying for FRL also saw higher percentages of virtual learners.

By Special Education Status

Students using special education services made up 13% of the virtual learners and 14% of the virtual enrollments. These percentages are similar to the statewide percentage of students using special education services (14%) for the 2022-23 school year. See the Student Enrollment Counts Report. Students using special education services had a virtual pass rate of 60% compared to 66% for those who did not. See Table D8 and Table G10.

A newer table in this annual report, Table D9, shows how virtual enrollments varied by a students’ primary disability. Just over 8,000 students had “Specific Learning Disability” listed as their primary disability. This translated to 38% of the virtual learners receiving special education services. The second and third largest groups were students with Other Health Impairments (4,491) and Emotional Impairment (2,725). These groups represented 21% and 13% respectively of virtual learners receiving special education services. Students with Speech & Language Impairment had the highest virtual pass rate at 82%.

Table D10, also a newer table, shows how the percentage of virtual learners using special education services by primary disability compares to the overall state rates. For instance, only about five percent of the states’ students with an IEP have “Emotional Impairment” listed as their primary disability. However, 26% of those students ended up taking at least one virtual course in 2022-23. These two new tables can assist in tracking how virtual learning is being used to target specific disabilities and how well performance follows.

By Home-School / Nonpublic Student Status

Another newer table in this annual report shows virtual learning data for home-schooled and nonpublic students enrolling in a public school to augment their education. There were nearly 6,000 such students, and this group of students generated over 20,000 virtual enrollments. These students had a 93% virtual pass rate. See Table D11.

By Full-Time or Part-Time

Thirty-one percent of students (48,991) were enrolled in cyber or full-time virtual schools. Students in these schools accounted for 449,188 or 44% of the virtual enrollments for the year. The pass rate for full-time virtual students was 60%. Seventy percent of virtual learning students were part-time virtual learners, taking some courses virtually to supplement their face-to-face schedule. This subset made up 56% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 68%. See Table D12. The 68% virtual pass rate was four percentage points lower than the non-virtual pass rate for these students. See Table D13.

Another way to conceptualize full/part time status is to look at the percentage of a student’s enrollments that were delivered virtually. There were many students (70,126) that had 75% or more of their enrollments reported as being delivered virtually. Examination of pass rates showed students who had fewer than 25% of their enrollments delivered virtually and those who had 75% or more of their enrollments delivered virtually, outperformed the students in the middle two quartile groupings. See Table D14. Table D15 and Table D16 show how the percentage of students, enrollments, and pass rates changed for LEA schools and PSA schools, respectively.

By Mobility Status

For the third consecutive year, mobility data were included as part of the data set. The mobility variable included the following statuses: stable, incoming, or outgoing. According to MI School Data, a student is marked as stable if he or she is in the same school for all collections for the school year, incoming students are those who transferred any time after the fall count day, and mobile students were present for fall count day but not subsequent ones. Some of the enrollments did not include information on this variable and were listed in the data tables as “Missing.” More information about this variable is available on the MI School Data Student Mobility page. Click on the About this Report down arrow on that page and then click About the Data to view definitions.

When it came to district stability, over 870,000 (85%) of the virtual enrollments were classified as stable. The pass rate for stable enrollments was 70%. Incoming enrollments to a district represented 6% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 50%. See Table D17.

When looking at mobility from a poverty perspective, we get a more nuanced picture. Eighty-three percent of virtual enrollments from students in poverty were stable compared to 91% for students who were not in poverty. The pass rate for stable, in poverty enrollments was 66% but rose to 80% for stable, not in poverty enrollments. For incoming virtual enrollments, there was a six-percentage point advantage for students who were not in poverty (49% v. 55%). See Table D18.

Looking at mobility from a locale perspective showed somewhat similar virtual enrollment percentages across geographies. Rural schools had the lowest percentage of stable enrollments at 82%. Town schools were next at 84%. Suburban schools reported 86% of their enrollments as stable. City schools reported the highest percentage of stable virtual enrollments with 88%. See Table D19. Virtual pass rates showed a similar pattern. Stable enrollments from Rural schools had a 68% pass rate whereas the pass rate was 78% for City schools. The incoming pass rates tended to lag the stable pass rates by 15 to 20 percentage points regardless of the locale. See Table D20.

A final mobility dimension explored was how enrollment and performance varied across full-time and part-time virtual schools. Full-time virtual or cyber schools had a lower percentage of their virtual enrollments designated as stable (80% v. 89%). The full-time pass rate for stable enrollments also lagged that of students from part-time virtual programs (66% v. 73%). See Table D21.

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, 79% of part-time virtual learners had at least three or more non-virtual enrollments. Of that group, 43% of students passed all their non-virtual courses, 19% did not pass one or two, and 37% did not pass three or more. There were clear differences in virtual pass rates between the three categories. Students passing all their non-virtual courses had an 81% virtual pass rate. Students who did not pass one or two non-virtual courses had a virtual pass rate of 68%, and those with the lowest non-virtual success had a virtual pass rate of only 45%. See Table D22.

By Virtual Course Performance

Fifty-two percent of virtual learners passed every virtual enrollment they took. This was four percentage points lower than the prior year. Eighteen percent did not pass any of their virtual enrollments, and 30% passed some, but not all their virtual enrollments. Students who passed all their virtual courses were responsible for 39% of the virtual enrollments. Students with mixed success generated 47% of the enrollments, and students who did not pass any of their virtual courses contributed 14% of the virtual enrollments (compared to 13% in 2021-22). See Table D23.

For the students who did not pass any of their virtual courses, 37% only took one or two virtual courses. On the other hand, over 14,000 students did not pass five or more virtual courses, and over 3,000 students did not pass 11 or more virtual courses. See Table D24 and Table G11. Further analysis of students failing all their 11 or more virtual courses showed 88% of these students had a single school report data for them. Over half of these students came from full-time virtual programs. Almost 600 students were using special education services (18%) and 2,800 of these students (85%) were in poverty.

What Table G11 makes clear is that for students who do not pass any of their virtual enrollments, “withdrawns” were rampant. For the virtual enrollments from students who did not pass any of their virtual enrollments, 50% had a “Withdrawn” status (exited, failing, or passing), and another 21% were classified as “Incomplete.” For those taking 11 or more virtual courses, 47% had a “Withdrawn” status and 22% were marked “Incomplete.” In each case, only 30% and 31% 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

Continuing pre-pandemic trends, virtual learners had the highest pass rates when they took one or two virtual courses. Students taking one to two virtual courses had a pass rate of 78% compared to a pass rate of 70% for those taking three to four virtual courses and a pass rate of 63% for students taking five or more virtual courses. About 35% of students took one or two virtual courses; however, 53% were found to have taken five or more virtual courses during the year. See Table D25.

A new table in this year’s report, D26, shows pass rate by virtual method and virtual usage. Blended Learning students had the highest overall pass rate (78%) and specifically, those taking one to two or five or more virtual courses were among the highest pass rates at 77% and 78% respectively. Students enrolled in one to two Online Courses were also among the highest pass rates at 78%. For students enrolled in both Digital Learning and Online Courses, pass rates decreased as the number of virtual courses increased (57% and 61% respectively). Students in Blended Learning courses did not display this trend.

State Assessment

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), Science (M-STEP) and Social Studies (M-STEP) examinations than the statewide proficiency rates. Thirty-nine percent of the 11th grade virtual learners tested proficient in Evidence-Based Reading and Writing, and 19% were proficient in Mathematics. For Science, 29% tested proficient whereas Social Studies had 26% of the virtual learners reach proficiency. See Table E1. The pattern was similar for those taking the 8th grade assessments. See Table E2.

By Non-Virtual Performance

As expected, the percentage of 8th and 11th grade 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 assessment. 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 E3 and Table E4.

By Poverty Status

Students in poverty consistently recorded proficiency rates that were considerably lower than their peers who were not in poverty. As examples, 26% of virtual learners in poverty scored proficient on the 11th grade Evidence-Based Reading and Writing exam compared to 55% for those who were not in poverty. For Mathematics, only 13% of 8th grade virtual learners in poverty scored proficient compared to 38% for those not in poverty. See Table E5 and Table E6.

By Full- or Part-Time Type

Both 8th and 11th grade students taking virtual courses in a part-time capacity had higher rates of proficiency on the assessments compared to full-time virtual learners. For some assessments, the gap was sizable. For instance, the difference was 14 percentage points for 11th grade Mathematics and 10 points for 8th grade Evidence-Based Reading & Writing. See Table E7 and Table E8.

Maps

Berrien, Gogebic-Ontonagon, and Muskegon Area ISDs/RESAs had over 25% of students in their service areas take a virtual course in 2022-23. In total, there were 11 ISDs/RESA with 15% or more of the students taking virtual courses. An additional 17 ISDs/RESA had at least 10% and less than 15% of their students take a virtual course. Only four ISDs/RESAs (Clare-Gladwin, Huron, Livingston, and Manistee) had less than 5% of their students take at least one virtual course. See Figure 2.

Figure 2. 2022-23 Percentage of Students Who Took a Virtual Course (Non-Cyber) by ISD

About one in four students (almost 5,500 students) attending a PSA cyber school resided within the Wayne RESA service area. The Genesee, Ingham, Kent, Macomb, and Oakland ISD service areas were the only other ISDs with 1,000 or more of their resident students attending PSA cyber schools. Forty-three of the 56 ISDs had 100 or more students attending a PSA cyber school. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. 2022-23 Count of PSA Cyber School Students by Resident ISD

Reflections on Higher Performing Schools

As the above sections of the report make clear, virtual learning performance, in general, was quite mixed. The analyses in this section will focus exclusively on those schools that achieved pass rates of 80% or higher to glean a clearer picture of what virtual learning looked like for these schools and programs and how it might have differed, if at all, from the state statistics.

There were 653 Michigan schools with virtual pass rates of 80% or higher, reflecting 44% of all schools in the state with virtual learners. These schools reported 54,634 virtual learners or about 34% of the state’s virtual learners. When zooming in on 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 10 or fewer students (36%) and 100 or more students (26%). See Table F1. Some offered few enrollments (125 schools had one to nine virtual enrollments) while others offered many (293 schools had 100 or more). See Table F2. They also varied in the number of course titles offered. Thirty-nine percent of these schools offered 10 or fewer virtual courses titles. Twenty-two percent had enrollments between 26 and 50 courses, and 17% of these schools had students in more than 50 different virtual courses. See Table F3.
• LEA and PSA schools can offer successful virtual programs – Forty-five percent of LEA schools with virtual programs had schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. For PSA schools, 34% achieved pass rates of 80% or higher. See Table F4. 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 – All locales had schools with virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. Rural schools had almost half of their schools reach this threshold, and Suburban and City school were 45% and 40%, respectively. See Table F5. 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 – These higher performing schools also showed promise for equitable outcomes for students of different races and ethnicities. The pass rates for African American or Black students (88%) and Hispanic or Latino (91%) were considerably closer to the White pass rate (92%) than it was across all schools. Asian students had the highest pass rate at 93%. See Table F6. For these schools, virtual programs appear to be approaching more equitable outcomes.
• Students in poverty are succeeding in these virtual programs – Recall that across the entire state, students in poverty had a pass rate (60%) that was 17 percentage points lower than those virtual students who were not in poverty. In these 653 schools, the virtual pass rate for students in poverty rose to 89%—considerably closer to the 94% virtual pass rate for the students in those schools who were not in poverty. Students in poverty continued to represent a large percentage of virtual learners (49%) and virtual enrollments (57%) in these schools, but smaller than the 63% of virtual learners and 70% of virtual enrollments seen across all virtual programs across the state. See Table F7. Additionally, virtual program success varied by a school’s free or reduced-lunch category (FRL). Sixty-eight percent of Low FRL schools with virtual learners achieved virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. It was 57% of the Mid-Low FRL schools, 36% of Mid-High FRL schools, and 31% of High FRL schools. See Table F8. While some High FRL schools showed it was possible, it was considerably rarer than it was for Low FRL schools.
• Both full- and part-time programs can run effective virtual programs, but success is rarer for full-time programs – Forty-six percent of part-time programs were able to yield schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. It was considerably more difficult for full-time programs to achieve similar success. Only 15 of the 77 full-time programs (19%) reached the 80% pass rate mark. See Table F9.
• Both general education and alternative education programs reached 80% school-wide virtual pass rates – There were 597 general education schools in Michigan that achieved schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. These schools represented 51% of general education schools with virtual programs. For alternative programs, 46 schools reached this mark. As a percentage of alternative programs, it represented just 17% of such schools, indicating that while possible, this threshold of success remains a sizable challenge. See Table F10.
• Virtual students can perform at or above their face-to-face performance level – In these 653 schools, there were 10,432 virtual learners who took a minimum of three virtual courses and had data for a minimum of three non-virtual courses. Eighty-five percent of these students had virtual pass rates that met or exceeded their non-virtual pass rates. See Table F11.

Conclusion

This year’s report represents the 13th year of data on the effectiveness of virtual learning in Michigan’s K-12 system. Many trends witnessed in past years continue to exist.

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%
2019-20	121,900	672,682	1,225	56%
2020-21	418,513	3,647,493	2,207	74%
2021-22	208,460	1,408,763	1,914	69%
2022-23	159,056	1,027,705	1,475	65%

As Table 1 makes clear, the huge influx of virtual learners during the pandemic has mostly subsided and levels seem to be approaching pre-pandemic levels. Unfortunately, the reduction in virtual learners and enrollments has been accompanied by a nine-percentage point drop in the virtual pass rate since 2020-21.

As we predicted in last year’s report, the virtual pass rate’s shift back toward pre-pandemic levels can be seen through a few factors. One was due to volume and performance differences in schools that left and those that entered. One hundred twenty-six new schools were represented in this year’s data while 565 schools from last year dropped out because they didn’t have any virtual learners this year. The new schools added around 41K virtual enrollments whereas the departing schools contributed over 320K last year. These figures are pertinent to the drop in the virtual pass rate because the incoming schools had a pass rate that was 22 percentage points lower than the schools that exited (42% v. 64%).

A second shift related to Alternative Education programs. Prior to the pandemic, Alternative Education programs produced close to half the virtual enrollments. At the height of the pandemic, they dropped to just 10%. Since then, the percentage has been rebounding; this year, alternative education enrollments rose back up to be 36% of the virtual enrollments. This is particularly important because the pass rate gap between Alternative Education programs and General Education programs was sizable. For this year, that performance gap was 23 percentage points lower for Alternative Education programs.

A third dynamic to understand relates to the grade levels of virtual learners. Pre-pandemic, we saw about 80% of the virtual enrollments come from the high school level. That percentage dropped to 40% for the 2020-21 school year. This year, the high school percentage was up to 68% of virtual enrollments. With the K-5 pass rates in the 80s and the 6-8th grade pass rates in the mid-60s to just over 70, 9-12th grade enrollments, which ranged this year between 48% and 65%, tend to lower the virtual pass rate. Therefore, as the shift back toward a larger percentage of high school enrollments occurs, the decline in the overall pass rate is predictable.

Given the 2022-23 figures for these three key factors suggest there is likely more correction needed to get closer to pre-pandemic levels, we are likely to see the overall pass rate continue to backslide.

On the positive side, the report also captured examples of schools and students benefiting from virtual learning. Forty-four percent of virtual learners were attending schools that had virtual pass rates of 80% or higher, and equity of outcomes was much closer to desired reality. Clearly, these schools add to the evidence that online learning can and does work for many schools and students. To date, however, these schools reflect more of the exception—the hope—rather than the rule. As school, community, and legislative leaders evaluate their virtual learning programs, the data provided in this report can serve as informative benchmarks, and the varied analyses can be used as models to understand local implementation success at a deeper level.

School leaders looking to take the next step forward with their virtual programs may find value in the many free resources that Michigan Virtual has authored. These resources include a series of practical guides to online learning designed for students, parents, teachers, mentors, school administrators, and school board members. Michigan Virtual also provides quality reviews of supplemental online learning programs to Michigan schools at no cost. There are also the National Standards for Quality Online Learning, which offer frameworks to evaluate online programs, online teaching, and online courses. Finally, educational leaders looking to communicate and collaborate with others around the future of learning may find value in the Future of Learning Council.

Appendix A – Methodology

COVID-19 Impact

Readers should note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have continued to impact schools throughout the 2022-23 school year. Thus, caution is advised when comparing this year’s findings with prior years.

About the Data

The data for this report came from the following sources:

• Michigan Student Data System – School Year 2022-2023;
• Educational Entity Master (EEM);
• Michigan Student Data System Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL) – Collection Year 2022-2023; and
• Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2021-22 – Used for comparing this year’s data with the 2021-22 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.

Enrollments classified as virtual in this report were treated as such due to the TSDL virtual method field indicating virtual delivery. Enrollments where the TSDL virtual method field was set to “Blended Learning,” “Digital Learning,” or “Online Course” were treated as virtual. According to the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 5.0, the virtual method field indicates “the type of virtual instruction the student is receiving.” (See page 357).

In prior years of the report, additional strategies, such as keyword searches of the local course title field, were used to flag virtual enrollments. Past years demonstrate that such efforts yield a low percentage of the virtual enrollments, and therefore were discontinued starting with the 2020-21 report.

Michigan Virtual Students

Because this report is published by Michigan Virtual, some people have falsely concluded that the data in this report is about Michigan Virtual students only. Quite the contrary, the data in this report represent K-12 virtual learning across all providers, and Michigan Virtual as a provider would reflect only a small percentage of the virtual enrollments covered in this report. Readers interested in Michigan Virtual specific results can find those published in its Annual Report: 2022-23, which include data on the number of students, districts, and enrollments served as well as its virtual pass rate.

Enrollment Calculations

Enrollment data for this report principally relies on data collected in the MSDS Student Course Component. See page 335 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 5.0 for more details about this collection. Through this collection, the State collects data for each course a student takes. It is important to note some key variations in the data collection that impact possible approaches to calculating enrollment counts.

An example of known variation is the local naming conventions for course titles. For instance, one school may call a course “English 9”, another “9th Grade English,” and yet another “ELA 9.” The Student Course Component resolves this issue by requiring schools to report each enrollment with a Subject Area Code and a Course Identifier Code (SCED Course Code). These codes are created by the National Center for Education Statistics through the School Courses for the Exchange of Data (SCED) initiative. By using these standardized codes, we can compare data more readily across schools.

Another important variation involves course sections. In addition to the course title and SCED Course Code, schools frequently parse a course title into multiple sections. For example, a school with trimester courses may break a course into three sections, one for each trimester. A semester-based school, on the other hand, may break up a course into two sections. Others have chosen to break their courses into even smaller units such as quarters while others report what seem to be course units or lessons. Sometimes, schools use course sections to differentiate the online and face-to-face components of courses. For our purposes, the key point is that there is not always one enrollment record per student per course title.

Multiple course sections for a single course title are not, in and of themselves, problematic. They could be resolved if a weighting variable—for instance, the fraction of a Carnegie unit each section represents—was collected. The State does collect a field, Credits Granted, in the Student Course Component that might be used. However, two main drawbacks significantly impair its use. The first is that the field is only required for Migrant-eligible and dual-enrolled students. As such, many enrollments do not have a reported value. The second hindrance is inconsistent reporting of data that do exist. In some cases, schools report the Carnegie unit that was possible to be earned (same value no matter the completion status of the enrollment), although others treat the field value as variable depending on how well the student did (e.g., report a 0.5 for a student with a “Completed/Passed” completion status, but a 0.0 for a student who had a “Completed/Failed” completion status). These drawbacks make the Credits Granted field unusable as a weighting variable.

The challenge of variable course sections reported is multiplied when more than one school entity reports on the same pupil. The data appear to contain instances of two or more schools reporting on the same enrollments. Flavors of this appear to be a school partnering with an ISD to provide special education services and both reporting the same enrollments. Another example appears to occur when a student transfers from one district and then enrolls in the same courses at the new school. Table A1 and Table A2 highlight enrollment variation.

Table A1. 2022-23 Virtual Enrollment Counts and Pass Rates by Number of Virtual Enrollments Per Student/SCED Code Pair

# of Virtual Enrolls per Student/SCED Code Pair	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
1	478,238	47%	64%
2	399,908	39%	65%
3	58,662	6%	46%
4	23,468	2%	46%
5	6,370	1%	52%
6 or More	61,059	6%	92%
Total	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table A2. 2022-23 Percentage of Students by Total Student Enrollment Counts (Virtual and Non-Virtual) and Full- or Part-Time Schools

Enrollment Count (Virtual and Non-Virtual)	Full-Time	Part-Time
1 to 5	11%	8%
6 to 10	31%	25%
11 to 15	43%	43%
16 to 20	11%	18%
21+	5%	7%
Total	100%	100%

Given these data limitations, enrollment counts and related data figures in this report should be treated as estimates that, generally speaking, convey the trends observed for the school year.

Pass Rate Calculations

For this report, the pass rate was calculated based on data reported in the “Completion Status” field. For more information about the Completion Status field, including definitions for each status, see page 352 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 5.0. Column one of Table A3 displays the various statuses reported by schools for the virtual enrollments.

Table A3. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status

Completion Status	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Audited	1,047	0%
Completed/Failed	131,565	13%
Completed/Passed	664,561	65%
Incomplete	88,420	9%
Ongoing Enrolled	112	0%
Tested Out	195	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	93,399	9%
Withdrawn/Failing	12,607	1%
Withdrawn/Passing	35,799	3%
Total	1,027,705	100%

Throughout this report, the pass rate 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 A3 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.” These virtual enrollments are not “failures” per se, but act as such in the formula since they are added to the formula’s denominator without impacting the numerator. Another example is enrollments with a completion status of “Incomplete.” About 9% 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, 3% of the virtual enrollments this year 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” (9% of the virtual enrollments)? Based on the data available, 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 re-enrolled in a different course or whether it was too late for re-enrollment 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 G to allow interested readers in drawing their own conclusions and calculating their own formulas for many of the pass rates reported.

Appendix B – School Tables

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

Table B1. Two Year Comparison (2021-22 and 2022-23) of Virtual Enrollment Data

School Years	# of Schools	% of 2022-23 Schools	# of 2022-23 Enrolls	% of 2022-23 Enrolls	2022-23 Pass Rate
2021-22 Only	565	NA	NA	NA	NA
2022-23 Only	126	9%	41,391	4%	42%
Both Years (2021-22 and 2022-23)	1,349	91%	986,314	96%	66%

Table B2. Virtual Enrollment Differences for Schools Reporting Virtual Learners in Both 2021-22 and 2022-23

Year-to-Year Enroll Difference (2022-23 minus 2021-22)	# of Schools Both Years	% of Schools Both Years	# of Enrolls Current Year	% of Enrolls Current Year
+1,000 or More	23	2%	246,496	25%
+500 to +999	31	2%	86,733	9%
+100 to +499	109	8%	109,393	11%
0 to +99	261	19%	78,282	8%
-1 to -99	469	35%	80,018	8%
-100 to -499	351	26%	165,122	17%
-500 to -999	58	4%	61,566	6%
-1,000 or More	47	3%	158,704	16%
Total	1,349	100%	986,314	100%

Table B3. Virtual Pass Rate Differences for Schools Reporting Virtual Learners in Both 2021-22 and 2022-23

Year-to-Year Pass Rate Difference (2022-23 minus 2021-22)	# of Schools Both Years	% of Schools Both Years	# of Enrolls Current Year	% of Enrolls Current Year
50 or More Percentage Points Increase	33	2%	7826	1%
25 to 49 Percentage Points Increase	92	7%	40,404	4%
10 to 24 Percentage Points Increase	219	16%	125,724	13%
0 to 9 Percentage Points Increase	369	27%	379,839	39%
1 to 9 Percentage Points Decrease	221	16%	334,564	34%
10 to 24 Percentage Points Decrease	140	10%	66,288	7%
25 to 49 Percentage Points Decrease	66	5%	22,316	2%
50 or More Percentage Points Decrease	21	2%	6,073	1%
NA – < 10 Enrolls in One or Both Years	188	14%	3,280	0%
Total	1,349	100%	986,314	100%

Table B4. 2022-23 Count and Pass Rate of K-12 Virtual Enrollments by Grade Level

Grade Level	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	% Change	Pass Rate	% Change from Prior Year
K	27,011	3%	-52%	85%	-1%
1	29,554	3%	-48%	87%	-1%
2	27,790	3%	-52%	87%	-1%
3	29,175	3%	-52%	85%	1%
4	29,426	3%	-49%	84%	-2%
5	30,777	3%	-51%	83%	0%
6	42,957	4%	-48%	71%	-8%
7	53,178	5%	-39%	67%	-8%
8	62,928	6%	-32%	65%	-8%
9	135,270	13%	-13%	48%	-1%
10	156,972	15%	-12%	57%	1%
11	167,125	16%	-12%	61%	2%
12	235,542	23%	-13%	65%	0%
Total	1,027,705	100%	-27%	65%	-4%

Table B5. 2022-23 Pass Rate Comparison for Virtual Learners in Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses

Grade Level	Virtual Pass Rate	Non-Virtual Pass Rate
K	85%	71%
1	87%	67%
2	87%	71%
3	85%	75%
4	84%	74%
5	83%	72%
6	71%	63%
7	67%	62%
8	65%	61%
9	48%	61%
10	57%	69%
11	61%	76%
12	65%	82%
Total	65%	72%

Table B6. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by School Pass Rate

School Pass Rate	# of Schools	% of Schools	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
0% to <10%	105	7%	23,680	2%
10% to <20%	19	1%	4,785	0%
20% to <30%	44	3%	77,261	8%
30% to <40%	73	5%	81,429	8%
40% to <50%	77	5%	59,605	6%
50% to <60%	133	9%	139,677	14%
60% to <70%	169	11%	145,284	14%
70% to <80%	196	13%	188,561	18%
80% to <90%	243	16%	142,333	14%
90% to 100%	416	28%	165,090	16%
Total	1,475	100%	1,027,705	100%

Table B7. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Entity Type

Entity Type	# of Schools	% of Schools	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
ISD School	32	2%	7,450	1%
ISD Unique Education Provider	4	0%	312	0%
LEA School	1,306	89%	660,604	64%
LEA Unique Education Provider	11	1%	5,521	1%
PSA School	122	8%	353,818	34%
Total	1,475	100%	1,027,705	100%

Table B8. 2022-23 Virtual Pass Rate by Entity Type

Entity Type	Pass Count	# of Enrolls	Pass Rate
ISD School	5,176	7,450	69%
ISD Unique Education Provider	NR	312	NR
LEA School	439,911	660,604	67%
LEA Unique Education Provider	NR	5,521	NR
PSA School	214,556	353,818	61%
Total	664,561	1,027,705	65%

Table B9. 2022-23 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	57	74%
LEA Unique Education Provider	2	3%
PSA School	17	22%
Total	77	100%

Table B10. 2022-23 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	21,170	43%	160,310	36%	58%
LEA Unique Education Provider	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
PSA School	27,426	56%	285,582	64%	61%
Total	48,991	100%	449,188	100%	60%

Table B11. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Part-Time (PT) Virtual Schools

Entity Type	# of PT Schools	% of PT Schools
ISD School	31	2%
ISD Unique Education Provider	4	0%
LEA School	1,249	89%
LEA Unique Education Provider	9	1%
PSA School	105	8%
Total	1,398	100%

Table B12. 2022-23 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	1,388	1%	4,872	1%	76%
ISD Unique Education Provider	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
LEA School	99,084	89%	500,294	86%	69%
LEA Unique Education Provider	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
PSA School	10,848	10%	68,236	12%	57%
Total	111,743	100%	578,517	100%	68%

Table B13. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by School Emphasis

School Emphasis	# of Schools	% of Schools	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Alternative Education	272	18%	374,298	36%
General Education	1,178	80%	650,830	63%
Special Education	22	1%	2,345	0%
Vocational/CTE	3	0%	232	0%
Total	1,475	100%	1,027,705	100%

Table B14. 2022-23 Virtual Pass Rate by School Emphasis

School Emphasis	Pass Count	# of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Alternative Education	186,874	374,298	50%
General Education	476,198	650,830	73%
Special Education	NR	2,345	NR
Vocational/CTE	NR	232	NR
Total	664,561	1,027,705	65%

Table B15. 2022-23 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
ISD Unique Education Provider	NR	NR
LEA School	77%	52%
LEA Unique Education Provider	NR	NR
PSA School	67%	43%
Total	73%	50%

Table B16. 2022-23 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	218	15%	928	0%
10 to 19	109	7%	1,492	0%
20 to 29	75	5%	1,796	0%
30 to 39	67	5%	2,292	0%
40 to 49	26	2%	1,173	0%
50 to 59	53	4%	2,893	0%
60 to 69	47	3%	3,012	0%
70 to 79	27	2%	2,014	0%
80 to 89	34	2%	2,844	0%
90 to 99	31	2%	2,942	0%
100+	788	53%	1,006,319	98%
Total	1,475	100%	1,027,705	100%

Table B17. 2022-23 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	5+ Virtual Courses / Learner
0% to <10%	7%	6%	8%
10% to <20%	1%	1%	2%
20% to <30%	2%	1%	5%
30% to <40%	2%	2%	8%
40% to <50%	2%	5%	7%
50% to <60%	6%	7%	12%
60% to <70%	8%	11%	14%
70% to <80%	11%	18%	12%
80% to <90%	21%	23%	10%
90% to 100%	40%	26%	23%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Table B18. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Locale

Locale	# of Schools	% of Schools	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Rural	490	33%	284,824	28%
Town	195	13%	103,102	10%
Suburb	554	38%	380,999	37%
City	233	16%	229,972	22%
Not Specified	3	0%	28,808	3%
Total	1,475	100%	1,027,705	100%

Table B19. 2022-23 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
Rural	23%	9%	9%	6%	53%	100%
Town	21%	11%	8%	6%	55%	100%
Suburb	28%	7%	7%	6%	52%	100%
City	26%	8%	7%	3%	56%	100%
Not Specified	33%	0%	0%	0%	67%	100%

Table B20. 2022-23 Virtual Pass Rate by Locale

Locale	Pass Rate	% Change from 21-22
Rural	62%	-5%
Town	66%	5%
Suburb	64%	-6%
City	73%	2%
Not Specified	NR	NR
Total	65%	-4%

Table B21. 2022-23 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
Rural	6%	9%	13%	25%	47%	100%
Town	7%	10%	17%	28%	39%	100%
Suburb	9%	6%	14%	25%	45%	100%
City	14%	10%	16%	21%	40%	100%
Not Specified	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	100%

Table B22. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Categories

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category	# of Schools with Virtual Learners	# of MI Schools (All)	% of Schools with Virtual Learners
Low FRL (<=25%)	153	378	40%
Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)	408	871	47%
Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)	538	1,169	46%
High FRL (>75%)	369	989	37%
Missing	7	NA	NA
Total	1,475	3,407	43%

Table B23. 2022-23 Number and Pass Rate of Virtual Enrollments by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Categories

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category	Pass Count	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Low FRL (<=25%)	NR	NR	<10%	86%
Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)	145,481	176,847	17%	82%
Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)	205,522	340,435	33%	60%
High FRL (>75%)	269,321	459,216	45%	59%
Missing	NR	NR	<10%	NR
Total	664,561	1,027,705	100%	65%

Appendix C – Course Tables

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

Table C1. 2022-23 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	781	0%	75%
Architecture and Construction	354	0%	87%
Business and Marketing	12,888	1%	75%
Communication and Audio/Visual Technology	3,920	0%	68%
Engineering and Technology	1,980	0%	76%
English Language and Literature	192,171	19%	63%
Health Care Sciences	3,281	0%	77%
Hospitality and Tourism	1,273	0%	70%
Human Services	12,146	1%	72%
Information Technology	15,341	1%	68%
Life and Physical Sciences	153,619	15%	63%
Manufacturing	459	0%	88%
Mathematics	173,430	17%	60%
Military Science	59	0%	56%
Miscellaneous	62,614	6%	72%
Nonsubject Specific	7,184	1%	76%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education	85,613	8%	67%
Public, Protective, and Government Services	2,302	0%	74%
Religious Education and Theology	108	0%	87%
Social Sciences and History	166,333	16%	64%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics	82	0%	78%
Visual and Performing Arts	81,370	8%	71%
World Languages	50,397	5%	59%
Total	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table C2. 2022-23 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	75%	82%
Architecture and Construction	87%	81%
Business and Marketing	75%	81%
Communication and Audio/Visual Technology	68%	83%
Engineering and Technology	76%	76%
English Language and Literature	63%	72%
Health Care Sciences	77%	80%
Hospitality and Tourism	70%	80%
Human Services	72%	76%
Information Technology	68%	73%
Life and Physical Sciences	63%	70%
Manufacturing	88%	82%
Mathematics	60%	68%
Military Science	56%	68%
Miscellaneous	72%	73%
Nonsubject Specific	76%	77%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education	67%	75%
Public, Protective, and Government Services	74%	82%
Religious Education and Theology	87%	85%
Social Sciences and History	64%	71%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics	78%	81%
Visual and Performing Arts	71%	78%
World Languages	59%	72%
Total	65%	72%

Table C3. 2022-23 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)	30,662	16%	48%
English/Language Arts II (10th grade)	29,271	15%	55%
English/Language Arts III (11th grade)	26,575	14%	59%
English/Language Arts IV (12th grade)	23,533	12%	63%
Language Arts (grade 8)	8,978	5%	63%
Language Arts (grade 7)	7,726	4%	66%
Language Arts (grade 6)	6,034	3%	70%
Language Arts (grade 5)	3,657	2%	80%
Language Arts (grade 2)	3,313	2%	86%
Language Arts—General	3,270	2%	56%
Total	143,019	74%	59%

Table C4. 2022-23 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	31,110	18%	54%
Algebra I	30,402	18%	44%
Algebra II	25,732	15%	61%
Consumer Mathematics	10,202	6%	71%
Mathematics (grade 7)	7,846	5%	63%
Mathematics (grade 8)	7,060	4%	59%
Mathematics (grade 6)	6,758	4%	70%
Pre-Algebra	4,695	3%	54%
Mathematics—Other	4,231	2%	48%
Mathematics (grade 5)	3,913	2%	80%
Total	131,949	76%	57%

Table C5. 2022-23 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	32,460	21%	54%
Chemistry	20,496	13%	61%
Earth Science	14,679	10%	53%
Physical Science	11,894	8%	57%
Earth and Space Science	7,079	5%	62%
Science (grade 7)	6,511	4%	66%
Science (grade 8)	6,339	4%	62%
Environmental Science	5,757	4%	57%
Physics	5,510	4%	64%
Science (grade 6)	5,084	3%	71%
Total	115,809	75%	58%

Table C6. 2022-23 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	21,584	13%	55%
World History and Geography	16,519	10%	52%
Economics	14,773	9%	64%
World History—Overview	14,259	9%	60%
U.S. Government—Comprehensive	10,133	6%	62%
Social Studies (grade 8)	7,409	4%	62%
Civics	6,775	4%	57%
Psychology	6,547	4%	70%
Social Studies (grade 7)	5,762	3%	65%
Modern U.S. History	5,681	3%	55%
Total	109,442	66%	59%

Table C7. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate for AP Courses

AP Course Title	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
AP 2-D Art and Design	20	0%	NR
AP 3-D Art and Design	8	0%	NR
AP Art History	94	2%	64%
AP Biology	204	5%	86%
AP Calculus AB	218	5%	93%
AP Calculus BC	60	1%	82%
AP Chemistry	108	3%	73%
AP Chinese Languages: Language and Culture	13	0%	NR
AP Computer Science A	313	8%	90%
AP Computer Science Principles	41	1%	98%
AP Drawing	17	0%	NR
AP Economics	14	0%	NR
AP English Language and Composition	334	8%	87%
AP English Literature and Composition	233	6%	86%
AP Environmental Science	156	4%	91%
AP European History	8	0%	NR
AP French Language and Culture	11	0%	NR
AP Government	56	1%	46%
AP Human Geography	100	2%	89%
AP Macroeconomics	192	5%	91%
AP Microeconomics	153	4%	94%
AP Music Theory	44	1%	84%
AP Physics 1	80	2%	83%
AP Physics 2	11	0%	NR
AP Physics C	74	2%	89%
AP Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism	2	0%	NR
AP Physics C: Mechanics	2	0%	NR
AP Psychology	625	15%	85%
AP Spanish Language and Culture	54	1%	78%
AP Spanish Literature and Culture	2	0%	NR
AP Statistics	292	7%	94%
AP U.S. Government and Politics	146	4%	86%
AP U.S. History	220	5%	85%
AP World History: Modern	142	4%	87%
Total	4,047	100%	87%

Table C8. 2022-23 Virtual Enrollments Percentage by Subject Area and Locale

Subject Area	% Rural	% Town	% Suburb	% City	% Not Specified
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Architecture and Construction	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business and Marketing	1%	2%	2%	1%	0%
Communication and Audio/Visual Technology	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%
Engineering and Technology	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
English Language and Literature	19%	19%	18%	19%	22%
Health Care Sciences	0%	1%	0%	0%	0%
Hospitality and Tourism	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Human Services	1%	2%	2%	1%	1%
Information Technology	1%	1%	2%	2%	0%
Life and Physical Sciences	15%	15%	15%	15%	16%
Manufacturing	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Mathematics	17%	17%	17%	16%	18%
Military Science	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Miscellaneous	5%	5%	7%	7%	2%
Nonsubject Specific	1%	0%	1%	1%	0%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education	9%	8%	8%	8%	7%
Public, Protective, and Government Services	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Religious Education and Theology	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Social Sciences and History	17%	17%	16%	15%	18%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Visual and Performing Arts	8%	6%	6%	11%	10%
World Languages	5%	5%	5%	4%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table C9. 2022-23 Virtual Enrollment Pass Rates by Subject Area and Locale

Subject Area	Rural Pass Rate	Town Pass Rate	Suburban Pass Rate	City Pass Rate	Not Specified Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources	70%	74%	80%	85%	NR
Architecture and Construction	86%	91%	81%	NR	NR
Business and Marketing	72%	79%	76%	69%	NR
Communication and Audio/Visual Technology	64%	62%	69%	80%	NR
Engineering and Technology	62%	94%	86%	87%	NR
English Language and Literature	60%	63%	62%	72%	34%
Health Care Sciences	82%	82%	70%	77%	NR
Hospitality and Tourism	77%	66%	78%	44%	NR
Human Services	73%	75%	70%	82%	6%
Information Technology	61%	61%	69%	75%	NR
Life and Physical Sciences	60%	64%	64%	71%	31%
Manufacturing	90%	96%	90%	80%	NR
Mathematics	57%	59%	61%	68%	30%
Military Science	NR	NR	49%	NR	NR
Miscellaneous	70%	65%	74%	71%	89%
Nonsubject Specific	68%	76%	78%	86%	NR
Physical, Health, and Safety Education	66%	73%	62%	78%	39%
Public, Protective, and Government Services	72%	80%	74%	67%	NR
Religious Education and Theology	NR	NR	92%	NR	NR
Social Sciences and History	61%	66%	65%	71%	30%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics	87%	NR	NR	67%	NR
Visual and Performing Arts	67%	72%	68%	82%	33%
World Languages	55%	69%	59%	63%	27%
Total	62%	66%	64%	73%	33%

Table C10. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Subject Area and Student Sex

Subject Area	# of Female Enrolls	# of Male Enrolls	% of Female Enrolls	% of Male Enrolls	Female Pass Rate	Male Pass Rate
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources	480	301	0%	0%	77%	72%
Architecture and Construction	73	281	0%	0%	90%	86%
Business and Marketing	6,502	6,386	1%	1%	76%	74%
Communication and Audio/Visual Technology	2,086	1,834	0%	0%	69%	67%
Engineering and Technology	811	1,169	0%	0%	76%	77%
English Language and Literature	97,125	95,046	19%	19%	64%	62%
Health Care Sciences	2,484	797	0%	0%	78%	71%
Hospitality and Tourism	751	522	0%	0%	71%	69%
Human Services	6,889	5,257	1%	1%	74%	70%
Information Technology	6,872	8,469	1%	2%	68%	69%
Life and Physical Sciences	77,209	76,410	15%	15%	64%	62%
Manufacturing	94	365	0%	0%	89%	87%
Mathematics	87,202	86,228	17%	17%	61%	60%
Military Science	NR	37	0%	0%	NR	59%
Miscellaneous	31,604	31,010	6%	6%	74%	70%
Nonsubject Specific	3,462	3,722	1%	1%	75%	77%
Physical, Health, and Safety Education	43,317	42,296	8%	8%	68%	66%
Public, Protective, and Government Services	1,451	851	0%	0%	75%	72%
Religious Education and Theology	57	51	0%	0%	86%	88%
Social Sciences and History	85,519	80,814	16%	16%	65%	63%
Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics	NR	70	0%	0%	NR	84%
Visual and Performing Arts	42,340	39,030	8%	8%	72%	70%
World Languages	26,653	23,744	5%	5%	61%	56%
Total	523,015	504,690	100%	100%	66%	64%

Table C11. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Virtual Method

Virtual Method	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Blended Learning	142,713	14%	78%
Digital Learning	76,180	7%	61%
Online Course	808,812	79%	63%
Total	1,027,705	100%	65%

Appendix D – Student Tables

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

Table D1. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students with Percent Year over Year Change

Grade Level	# of Students	% of Students	% Change from Prior Year
K	3,260	2%	-55%
1	3,952	2%	-52%
2	3,387	2%	-57%
3	3,753	2%	-52%
4	3,649	2%	-52%
5	4,043	3%	-52%
6	5,457	3%	-41%
7	7,061	4%	-30%
8	8,692	5%	-24%
9	20,590	13%	-11%
10	25,972	16%	-12%
11	29,644	19%	-10%
12	40,668	26%	-12%
Total	159,056	100%	-24%

Table D2. 2022-23 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
Female	81,236	51%	523,015	51%	66%
Male	77,844	49%	504,690	49%	64%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D3. 2022-23 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 or Black	30,941	19%	220,517	21%	56%
American Indian or Alaska Native	1,181	1%	7,538	1%	56%
Asian	2,757	2%	13,490	1%	79%
Hispanic or Latino	14,250	9%	97,730	10%	61%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	127	0%	794	0%	60%
White	99,861	63%	615,261	60%	69%
Two or More Races	9,281	6%	68,571	7%	64%
Unknown	1,343	1%	3,804	0%	47%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D4. 2022-23 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	100,702	63%	722,606	70%	60%
No	57,210	36%	300,555	29%	77%
Unknown	1,445	1%	4,544	0%	52%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D5. 2022-23 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	60%	64%	-4%
No	77%	85%	-9%
Unknown	52%	25%	27%
Total	65%	72%	-8%

Table D6. 2022-23 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	71%	74%	56%
Part-Time Virtual	60%	68%	63%
Total	63%	70%	60%

Table D7. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category	# of Virtual Students	# of All MI Students	% of Virtual Students
Low FRL (<=25%)	14,645	228,435	6%
Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)	37,256	409,534	9%
Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)	51,117	422,292	12%
High FRL (>75%)	57,349	330,848	17%
Missing	1,110	NA	NA
Total	159,056	1,437,279	11%

Table D8. 2022-23 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	21,050	13%	147,945	14%	60%
No	136,862	86%	875,216	85%	66%
Unknown	1,445	1%	4,544	0%	52%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D9. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate by Primary Disability

Primary Disability	# of Students	% of Students	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Autism Spectrum Disorder	1,709	8%	11,565	8%	73%
Cognitive Impairment	1,275	6%	7,895	5%	60%
Deaf-Blindness	NR	0%	NR	0%	NR
Deaf or Hard of Hearing	141	1%	948	1%	61%
Early Childhood Developmental Delay	NR	0%	NR	0%	NR
Emotional Impairment	2,725	13%	19,239	13%	47%
Physical Impairment	71	0%	531	0%	81%
Specific Learning Disability	8,044	38%	55,380	37%	58%
Speech and Language Impairment	1,841	9%	17,491	12%	82%
Severe Multiple Impairment	111	1%	224	0%	78%
Traumatic Brain Injury	53	0%	349	0%	69%
Visual Impairment	59	0%	344	0%	63%
Other Health Impairment	4,491	21%	30,007	20%	56%
MISSING/None-Listed	617	3%	3,583	2%	32%
Total	21,050	100%	147,945	100%	60%

Table D10. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students Compared to All MI Students with IEPs by Primary Disability

Primary Disability	# of Virtual Students	# of All MI Students with IEPs	% of All MI Students with IEPs Who Took a Virtual Course	% of All MI Students with IEPs
Autism Spectrum Disorder	1,709	25,147	7%	12%
Cognitive Impairment	1,275	16,521	8%	8%
Deaf-Blindness	NR	NR	NR	NR
Deaf or Hard of Hearing	141	2,183	6%	1%
Early Childhood Developmental Delay	NR	NR	NR	NR
Emotional Impairment	2,725	10,291	26%	5%
Physical Impairment	71	1,308	5%	1%
Specific Learning Disability	8,044	54,418	15%	26%
Speech and Language Impairment	1,841	57,667	3%	27%
Severe Multiple Impairment	111	2,763	4%	1%
Traumatic Brain Injury	53	398	13%	0%
Visual Impairment	59	728	8%	0%
Other Health Impairment	4,491	30,186	15%	14%
MISSING/None-Listed	617	NA	NA	NA
Total	21,050	209,937	10%	100%

Table D11. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Home-School/Nonpublic Student Status

Home-School or Nonpublic Student Status	# of Students	% of Students	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
No	153,077	96%	1,007,001	98%	64%
Yes	5,993	4%	20,704	2%	93%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D12. 2022-23 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	48,991	31%	449,188	44%	60%
Part-Time Virtual	111,743	70%	578,517	56%	68%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D13. 2022-23 Pass Rate Comparison for Full- and Part-Time Virtual Learners

Virtual Subset	Virtual Pass Rate	Non-Virtual Pass Rate
Full-Time Virtual	60%	87%
Part-Time Virtual	68%	72%
Total	65%	72%

Table D14. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Delivered Virtually

% of Enrollments an Individual Student Took Virtually	# of Students	% of Students	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
<25% of Enrolls Virtual	52,937	33%	83,839	8%	74%
25% to 49% of Enrolls Virtual	21,826	14%	105,714	10%	58%
50% to 74% of Enrolls Virtual	14,167	9%	122,715	12%	52%
75% or More of Enrolls Virtual	70,126	44%	715,437	70%	67%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D15. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments from LEA Schools Only with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Delivered Virtually

% of Enrollments Delivered Virtually	# of Students	% of Students	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
<25% of Enrolls Virtual	49,607	41%	76,989	12%	76%
25% to 49% of Enrolls Virtual	17,561	15%	77,656	12%	64%
50% to 74% of Enrolls Virtual	10,049	8%	81,325	12%	56%
75% or More of Enrolls Virtual	42,389	35%	424,634	64%	67%
Total	119,606	100%	660,604	100%	67%

Table D16. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments from PSA Schools Only with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Delivered Virtually

% of Enrollments Delivered Virtually	# of Students	% of Students	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
<25% of Enrolls Virtual	2,747	7%	4,205	1%	58%
25% to 49% of Enrolls Virtual	1,370	4%	7,033	2%	45%
50% to 74% of Enrolls Virtual	1,368	4%	11,206	3%	46%
75% or More of Enrolls Virtual	32,634	86%	331,374	94%	61%
Total	38,119	100%	353,818	100%	61%

Table D17. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by District Mobility

District Mobility	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Stable	871,940	85%	70%
Incoming	59,388	6%	50%
Outgoing	92,573	9%	23%
Missing	3,804	0%	47%
Total	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D18. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by District Mobility and Known Poverty Status

District Mobility	# of In Poverty Enrolls	# of Not In Poverty Enrolls	% of In Poverty Enrolls	% of Not In Poverty Enrolls	In Poverty Pass Rate	Not In Poverty Pass Rate
Stable	596,930	274,292	83%	91%	66%	80%
Incoming	50,372	9,016	7%	3%	49%	55%
Outgoing	75,304	17,247	10%	6%	20%	36%
Total	722,606	300,555	100%	100%	60%	77%

Table D19. 2022-23 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by District Mobility and Locale

District Mobility	% of Rural Enrolls	% of Town Enrolls	% of Suburban Enrolls	% of City Enrolls	% of Not Specified Enrolls
Stable	82%	84%	86%	88%	72%
Incoming	8%	3%	5%	5%	16%
Outgoing	10%	13%	8%	7%	12%
Missing	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table D20. 2022-23 Virtual Pass Rates by District Mobility and Locale

District Mobility	Rural Pass Rate	Town Pass Rate	Suburban Pass Rate	City Pass Rate	Not Specified Pass Rate
Stable	68%	71%	69%	78%	39%
Incoming	48%	57%	55%	56%	26%
Outgoing	22%	31%	23%	21%	5%
Missing	43%	57%	49%	36%	NR
Total	62%	66%	64%	73%	33%

Table D21. 2022-23 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by District Mobility and Full-Time (FT) or Part-Time (PT) Virtual Status

District Mobility	% of FT Enrolls	% of PT Enrolls	FT Pass Rate	PT Pass Rate
Stable	80%	89%	66%	73%
Incoming	9%	3%	50%	51%
Outgoing	10%	8%	23%	23%
Missing	0%	0%	44%	48%
Total	100%	100%	60%	68%

Table D22. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Part-Time Virtual 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	38,052	43%	99,469	30%	81%
Did Not Pass 1 or 2 NV Courses	17,053	19%	58,479	18%	68%
Did Not Pass 3 or More NV Courses	33,033	37%	176,214	53%	45%
Total	88,138	100%	334,162	100%	60%

Table D23. 2022-23 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	82,799	52%	404,257	39%	100%
Passed Some, But Not All	48,106	30%	480,723	47%	54%
Didn’t Pass Any	28,151	18%	142,725	14%	0%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D24. 2022-23 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	10,295	37%
3 to 4	3,435	12%
5 to 6	6,824	24%
7 to 8	3,043	11%
9 to 10	1,260	4%
11+	3,294	12%
Total	28,151	100%

Table D25. 2022-23 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	55,874	35%	77,431	8%	78%
3 to 4 Virtual Courses	19,307	12%	66,965	7%	70%
5 or More Virtual Courses	83,875	53%	883,309	86%	63%
Total	159,056	100%	1,027,705	100%	65%

Table D26. 2022-23 Virtual Method Virtual Pass Rate by Virtual Usage

Virtual Usage	Blended Learning Pass Rate	Digital Learning Pass Rate	Online Course Pass Rate	Total Pass Rate
1 to 2 Virtual Courses	77%	70%	78%	78%
3 to 4 Virtual Courses	56%	69%	71%	70%
5 or More Virtual Courses	78%	57%	61%	63%
Total Pass Rate	78%	61%	63%	65%

Appendix E – State Assessment Tables

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

Table E1. 2022-23 Comparison of Virtual and State Proficiency Rates on 11th Grade State Assessment Measures

Assessment	Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	39%	52%
Mathematics (SAT)	19%	30%
Science (M-STEP)	29%	39%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	26%	36%

Table E2. 2022-23 Comparison of Virtual and State Proficiency Rates on 8th Grade State Assessment Measures

Assessment	Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	51%	60%
Mathematics (SAT)	22%	36%
Science (M-STEP)	29%	37%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	18%	27%

Table E3. 2022-23 11th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners with Three or More Non-Virtual Enrollments by Non-Virtual Performance

Assessment	Pass All NV	Did Not Pass 1 or 2 NV	Did Not Pass 3 or More NV	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	58%	39%	20%	52%
Mathematics (SAT)	35%	17%	7%	30%
Science (M-STEP)	42%	27%	16%	39%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	39%	22%	12%	36%

Table E4. 2022-23 8th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners with Three or More Non-Virtual Enrollments by Non-Virtual Performance

Assessment	Pass All NV	Did Not Pass 1 or 2 NV	Did Not Pass 3 or More NV	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	69%	49%	34%	60%
Mathematics (SAT)	42%	23%	7%	36%
Science (M-STEP)	44%	27%	15%	37%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	34%	20%	7%	27%

Table E5. 2022-23 11th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Poverty Status

Assessment	In Poverty	Not In Poverty	All Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	26%	55%	52%	52%
Mathematics (SAT)	8%	31%	30%	30%
Science (M-STEP)	20%	40%	39%	39%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	16%	38%	36%	3%

Table E6. 2022-23 8th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Poverty Status

Assessment	In Poverty	Not In Poverty	All Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	43%	64%	60%	60%
Mathematics (SAT)	13%	38%	36%	36%
Science (M-STEP)	21%	44%	37%	37%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	11%	30%	27%	27%

Table E7. 2022-23 11th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Virtual Type

Assessment	Part-Time	Full-Time	All Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	41%	30%	52%	52%
Mathematics (SAT)	21%	7%	30%	30%
Science (M-STEP)	30%	24%	39%	39%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	26%	23%	36%	36%

Table E8. 2022-23 8th Grade State Assessment Proficiency Rates for Virtual Learners by Virtual Type

Assessment	Part-Time	Full-Time	All Virtual Learners	All Learners Statewide
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing (SAT)	51%	51%	60%	60%
Mathematics (SAT)	26%	16%	36%	36%
Science (M-STEP)	30%	28%	37%	37%
Social Studies (M-STEP)	20%	16%	27%	27%

Appendix F – Higher Performing Schools Tables

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

Table F1. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Virtual Learner Count Category

Virtual Learner Count	School Count	% of Schools
10 or Fewer	238	36%
11 to 25	80	12%
26 to 50	83	13%
51 to 99	79	12%
100 or More	173	26%
Total	653	100%

Table F2. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments from Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Virtual Count Category

Virtual Enroll Count	# of Schools	% of Schools	# of Virtual Enrolls	% of Virtual Enrolls
1 to 9	125	19%	536	0%
10 to 29	102	16%	1,764	1%
30 to 49	47	7%	1,694	1%
50 to 99	86	13%	6,083	2%
100 or More	293	45%	276,369	96%
Total	653	100%	286,446	100%

Table F3. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Number of Virtual Courses Offered

Virtual Courses Offered	# of Schools	% of Schools
10 or Fewer	257	39%
11 to 25	143	22%
26 to 50	144	22%
More than 50	109	17%
Total	653	100%

Table F4. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate as a Percentage of All Virtual Schools

Entity Type	# of Higher Performing Schools	# of Virtual Schools	% of Virtual Schools
ISD School	11	32	34%
ISD Unique Education Provider	NR	NR	NR
LEA School	591	1,306	45%
LEA Unique Education Provider	NR	NR	NR
PSA School	41	122	34%
Total	653	1,475	44%

Table F5. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Locale

Locale	# of Higher Performing Schools	# of Virtual Schools	% of Virtual Schools
Rural	232	490	47%
Town	76	195	39%
Suburb	250	554	45%
City	93	233	40%
Not Specified	2	3	67%
Total	653	1,475	44%

Table F6. 2022-23 Number of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate Data from Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity	# of Students	# of Pass	# of Enrolls	Pass Rate
African-American or Black	6,898	33,509	37,938	88%
American Indian or Alaska Native	313	1,475	1,818	81%
Asian	1,341	4,825	5,210	93%
Hispanic or Latino	4,541	24,008	26,457	91%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	NR	NR	NR	NR
Two or More Races	2,999	18,253	20,336	90%
Unknown	NR	NR	NR	NR
White	38,249	178,469	193,905	92%
Total	54,634	261,169	286,446	91%

Table F7. 2022-23 Number of Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rate Data from Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Poverty Status

Poverty Status	# of Students	% of Students	# of Pass	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls	Pass Rate
Y	27,000	49%	146,000	163,245	57%	89%
N	27,350	50%	114,654	122,546	43%	94%
Unknown	315	1%	515	655	0%	79%
Total	54,634	100%	261,169	286,446	100%	91%

Table F8. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category	# of Higher Performing Schools	% of Higher Performing Schools	# of All Virtual Schools	% of All Virtual Schools
Low FRL (<=25%)	104	16%	153	68%
Mid-Low FRL (>25% to <=50%)	232	36%	408	57%
Mid-High FRL (>50% to <=75%)	195	30%	538	36%
High FRL (>75%)	116	18%	369	31%
Missing	6	1%	7	86%
Total	653	100%	1,475	44%

Table F9. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Full- or Part-Time Status

Full- or Part-Time Status	# of Higher Performing Schools	% of Higher Performing Schools	# of All Virtual Schools	% of All Virtual Schools
Full-Time	15	2%	77	19%
Part-Time	638	98%	1,398	46%
Total	653	100%	1,475	44%

Table F10. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by School Emphasis

School Emphasis	# of Higher Performing Schools	# of All Virtual Schools	% of All Virtual Schools
Alternative Education	46	272	17%
General Education	597	1,178	51%
Special Education	NR	NR	NR
Vocational/CTE	NR	NR	NR
Total	653	1,475	44%

Table F11. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Students* from Schools with 80% or Higher Pass Rate by Pass Rate Difference Category

Pass Rate Difference Category	# of Students	% of Students
Virtual Less than Non-Virtual	1,589	15%
Virtual Met/Exceeded Non-Virtual	8,843	85%
Total	10,432	100%

Appendix G – Completion Status Tables

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

Table G1. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status

Completion Status	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Audited	1,047	0%
Completed/Failed	131,565	13%
Completed/Passed	664,561	65%
Incomplete	88,420	9%
Ongoing Enrolled	112	0%
Tested Out	195	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	93,399	9%
Withdrawn/Failing	12,607	1%
Withdrawn/Passing	35,799	3%
Total	1,027,705	100%

Table G2. 2022-23 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Entity Type

Completion Status	ISD School % of Enrolls	ISD UEP % of Enrolls	LEA School % of Enrolls	LEA UEP % of Enrolls	PSA School % of Enrolls
Audited	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	7%	1%	12%	5%	15%
Completed/Passed	69%	84%	67%	84%	61%
Incomplete	8%	7%	9%	0%	8%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	14%	8%	8%	8%	10%
Withdrawn/Failing	0%	0%	1%	0%	3%
Withdrawn/Passing	2%	0%	3%	2%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table G3. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Full-Time Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status

Completion Status	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Audited	165	0%
Completed/Failed	60,957	14%
Completed/Passed	270,775	60%
Incomplete	53,120	12%
Ongoing Enrolled	NR	0%
Tested Out	NR	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	37,943	8%
Withdrawn/Failing	9,148	2%
Withdrawn/Passing	16,991	4%
Total	449,188	100%

Table G4. 2022-23 Number and Percentage of Part-Time Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status

Completion Status	# of Enrolls	% of Enrolls
Audited	882	0%
Completed/Failed	70,608	12%
Completed/Passed	393,786	68%
Incomplete	35,300	6%
Ongoing Enrolled	106	0%
Tested Out	112	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	55,456	10%
Withdrawn/Failing	3,459	1%
Withdrawn/Passing	18,808	3%
Total	578,517	100%

Table G5. 2022-23 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	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	12%	13%	5%
Completed/Passed	50%	73%	56%
Incomplete	20%	2%	1%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	14%	6%	34%
Withdrawn/Failing	1%	1%	0%
Withdrawn/Passing	3%	4%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Table G6. 2022-23 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	0%	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	13%	15%	13%	13%
Completed/Passed	63%	60%	63%	64%
Incomplete	9%	10%	9%	9%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	9%	10%	9%	9%
Withdrawn/Failing	1%	1%	1%	1%
Withdrawn/Passing	3%	3%	3%	3%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table G7. 2022-23 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Student Sex

Completion Status	Females % of Enrolls	Males % of Enrolls
Audited	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	12%	13%
Completed/Passed	66%	64%
Incomplete	9%	9%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	9%	10%
Withdrawn/Failing	1%	1%
Withdrawn/Passing	3%	4%
Total	100%	100%

Table G8. 2022-23 Percentage of Virtual Enrollments by Completion Status and Race / Ethnicity

Completion Status	African American or Black % 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	Unknown % of Enrolls
Audited	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	16%	13%	6%	13%	12%	14%	10%
Completed/Passed	56%	56%	79%	61%	69%	64%	47%
Incomplete	11%	15%	4%	11%	8%	7%	15%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	12%	10%	6%	10%	8%	9%	24%
Withdrawn/Failing	2%	1%	1%	1%	1%	2%	0%
Withdrawn/Passing	4%	5%	4%	4%	3%	4%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table G9. 2021-22 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	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	15%	8%	10%
Completed/Passed	60%	77%	52%
Incomplete	10%	6%	13%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	10%	6%	20%
Withdrawn/Failing	1%	1%	0%
Withdrawn/Passing	4%	3%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Table G10. 2022-23 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	0%	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	16%	12%	10%
Completed/Passed	60%	66%	52%
Incomplete	8%	9%	13%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	10%	9%	20%
Withdrawn/Failing	2%	1%	0%
Withdrawn/Passing	4%	3%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Table G11. 2022-23 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	0%	0%
Completed/Failed	30%	31%
Completed/Passed	0%	0%
Incomplete	21%	22%
Ongoing Enrolled	0%	0%
Tested Out	0%	0%
Withdrawn/Exited	35%	37%
Withdrawn/Failing	5%	3%
Withdrawn/Passing	10%	7%
Total	100%	100%