Michigan Voices

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 12th edition of this annual publication and completes 14 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 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, percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Schools

Fast Facts

• 613 school districts reported at least one virtual enrollment. This represented approximately 68% of Michigan school districts.

• 1,421 schools reported at least one virtual enrollment. This is a decrease of approximately 3.5% compared to last year’s value of 1,475.

• 10% of this year’s schools did not report any virtual enrollments the prior year. These 144 schools added 27,719 enrollments with a 77% pass rate.

• 90% of this year’s schools also reported virtual enrollments last year. They accounted for over 991,000 enrollments with a pass rate of 63%.

• 198 schools that offered virtual learning the prior year did not report any for this year.

• 56% of the 1,421 schools with virtual enrollments had 100 or more virtual enrollments. These higher-volume schools accounted for 98% of virtual enrollments.

• 79% of schools with virtual enrollments had a general education school emphasis; 19% had an alternative education emphasis.

• 88% of schools with virtual learning were LEA schools.

• LEA schools accounted for 60% of the virtual enrollments; PSA schools generated 38% of the virtual enrollments.

• Approximately 51% of virtual enrollments came from schools with part-time virtual learning options.

• LEA schools represented 72% of the full-time virtual schools.

• 71% of virtual enrollments came from students in grades 9-12.

• 38% of virtual enrollments came from suburban schools, the most of any locale.

• Schools with a general education emphasis had a 72% virtual pass rate, outperforming those with an alternative education emphasis, which had a pass rate of 51%.

• 29% of schools had a school-wide virtual pass rate of 90% to 100%, an increase of one percentage point from last year.

Number of Districts and Schools

For the 2023-24 school year, 613 districts reported having at least one virtual enrollment. This represented approximately 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, 1,421 schools reported virtual enrollments, 54 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 – 198 schools had virtual enrollments the prior year (2022-23) but did not report any virtual enrollments in 2023-2024. Last year, those schools accounted for a total of 27,830 virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 70%.

• Returning – 1,277 or 90% of schools in this year’s dataset reported virtual enrollments in both 2022-23 and 2023-2024. This year, these schools generated 991,942 enrollments and had a pass rate of 63%, which was three percentage points lower than their rate in 2022-23.

• New – 144 schools reported virtual enrollments this year that did not last year. Those schools accounted for 27,719 enrollments, with a pass rate of 77%.

394,331 of this year’s enrollments came from 30 schools that reported 1,000 or more enrollments than they did in 2022-23. On the other hand, 27 schools reported decreases of 1,000 or more virtual enrollments this year. Despite these declines, these schools yielded 65,155 virtual enrollments this year. See Table B2. These declines are less drastic than in previous years, suggesting that volatility from the pandemic may be starting to slow. About 17.4% 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 1,019,661 virtual enrollments across the 1,421 schools. Students in 12th grade generated the most virtual enrollments (249,246), representing 24% 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; this year, high school enrollments accounted for approximately 71% of the 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 63%, a decrease of 2 percentage points over the prior year, which may be expected as high school enrollments continue to rebound. See Table G1 for a more specific breakdown of all the completion statuses. This ranged from a high of 82% in first grade to a low of 45% in 9th grade.

This year, elementary grades tended to see larger percentage decreases than last year (two to eight percentage points), whereas the middle school grades (6^th, 7^th, 8^th) saw increases of between one to four percentage points. Among the high school grades, 9^th and 10^th grades saw small decreases (three and two percentage points, respectively), while 11th and 12th grades 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 2023-24, virtual learners had a 63% pass rate in their virtual courses but a 74% 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 1,421 schools with virtual enrollments, 411, or 29%, had school-level virtual pass rates of 90% to 100%. This was one percentage point higher than the prior year. Approximately 61% percent of the schools (865) had virtual pass rates of 70% or higher. This was three 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 60% and 38%, respectively. Virtual enrollments came from 1,251 (88%) LEA schools, while only 128 (9%) of the schools were PSAs. See Table B7. LEA schools had a higher pass rate (64%) than PSA schools (60%), continuing last year’s trend, although pass rates for both entities dropped. See Table B8 or, for a more in-depth look at the completion statuses, see Table G2.

To put this in perspective, as of January 2025, roughly 44% of all LEA schools had a virtual program, compared to approximately 23% of ISD schools. The percentages of State and PSA schools with virtual programs were similar at approximately 33 and 35%, respectively.

By Full-Time Virtual Schools

The number of full-time virtual schools (76) decreased by one from the prior year. Fifty-five of the 76 full-time virtual schools (72%) were LEA schools. PSA schools (18) accounted for 24% of the full-time virtual schools. See Table B9. Despite the sizable difference in the number of schools, PSAs reported more virtual enrollments (62%) from full-time virtual students statewide compared to LEAs (37%). PSA full-time virtual learners saw higher virtual pass rates (62%) than their counterparts in LEA schools (55%). See Table B10 and Table G3. Overall, the number of virtual enrollments from full-time virtual schools increased from 449,188 in 2022-2023 to 499,793 this year. Approximately 49% 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 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, 12% 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-eight percent of the part-time virtual students were enrolled through LEA schools, and 11% through PSA schools. LEA schools accounted for 431,372 virtual enrollments or 83% of the part-time enrollments. In total, enrollments from part-time virtual schools accounted for approximately 51% of all the virtual enrollments for the year. LEA schools had a pass rate of 68%, whereas PSA schools had a pass rate of 54%. Overall, the pass rate for the part-time virtual schools (67%) was seven percentage points higher than the rate for the full-time virtual schools (60%). See Table B12 and Table G4.

By School Emphasis

Seventy-nine percent of schools with virtual learning were designated as General Education and produced 608,000 (60%) virtual enrollments. Schools with Alternative Education as their emphasis accounted for 409,964 (40%) 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 72% virtual pass rate, whereas Alternative Education schools had a 51% virtual pass rate (see Table B14 and Table G5), though this varied by entity type. LEA schools, for instance, had a 76% virtual pass rate for General Education schools and a 53% virtual pass rate for Alternative Education schools. See Table B15.

By Number of Virtual Enrollments

Fifty-six percent of schools with virtual enrollments had 100 or more virtual enrollments. These schools were responsible for 98% of the virtual enrollments (1,000,507). See Table B16.

Interestingly, last year’s trend that schools with fewer virtual enrollments per student performed better was absent. The trend in which, in general, schools with 1-2 enrollments per student or 5+ enrollments per student performed better than those with 3-4 enrollments per student continued. Indeed, 40% of schools with an average of one to two virtual enrollments per virtual learner had a pass rate of 90-100%, and 40% of schools with an average of five or more virtual courses per student also had a pass rate between 90-100%. See Table B17.

By Locale

Suburban schools represented 36% of schools with virtual enrollments. Rural settings provided the second most schools with 34%. Suburban schools also tallied the largest percentage of the virtual enrollments at 38%. Rural schools were the next closest, providing 30% 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. City schools, which had the highest virtual pass rate in 2022-23, had the lowest pass rate this year at 62%. This represents an eleven-percentage point drop. Suburban schools had the highest at 68%. See Table B20. On the other hand, Rural and Suburban schools had 47% of their schools achieve 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%)

Similarly to last year, none of the categories had 50% or more of its schools report virtual learners. Mid-high FRL had the highest percentage at 47%. The higher numbers of schools from each category with virtual learners may be attributable to the pandemic, and numbers will likely continue to stabilize in the coming years. See Table B22.

While High FRL schools represented only 37% of schools with virtual learners (369), they accounted for 44% of the virtual enrollments. Mid-High FRL schools accounted for 36% of the enrollments. Low FRL schools, on the other hand, reported less than 5% of the virtual enrollments. The virtual pass rate for Low FRL schools was 85% compared to 57% for Mid-High FRL and 60% for High FRL schools. See Table B23.

By High Enrollment Schools

There were over 200 schools that had 1,000 or more virtual enrollments. It is worth noting that these high enrollment schools were less defined by having a larger number of virtual students (88,136 versus 67,835) and more about the number of virtual enrolls per student (8.9 virtual courses per student in the high enrollment schools compared to 3.5 in the non-high enrollment schools).

For high enrollment schools, both LEAs (153 schools) and PSAs (46 schools) had virtual pass rates of 61%. The corresponding virtual pass rates for virtual enrollments from schools with less than 1,000 enrollments moved in opposite directions. For non-high enrollment schools, the LEA schools’ virtual pass rate was nine percentage points higher (70%), whereas the PSA schools’ virtual pass rate was seven percentage points lower (54%). See Table B24 and Table B25.

There was close to a 50-50 split in the number of Alternative Education (104) and General Education (100) high enrollment schools. The virtual pass rate for these schools was 50% and 70%, respectively. In both cases, students from non-high enrollment schools performed better – three percentage points and five percentage points, respectively. See Table B26 and Table B27.

Courses

Fast Facts

• Just over 1M virtual enrollments were taken by Michigan K-12 students; the overall pass rate for virtual enrollments was 63%.

• Virtual enrollments were spread across 1,091 different course titles.

• 66% of virtual enrollments occurred in the core subject areas of English Language and Literature, Mathematics, Life and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and History.

• The course titles with the highest enrollments for each core subject were:

  • English Language and Literature: English 9, English 10, English 11, and English 12

  • Mathematics: Geometry, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Consumer Mathematics

  • Life and Physical Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physical Science

  • Social Sciences and History: U.S. History—Comprehensive, World History and Geography, Economics, and World History—Overview

Number of Courses

The 1,019,661 virtual enrollments came from 1,091 different course titles, as determined by unique SCED codes.

Courses by Subject Area

English Language and Literature was, again, the subject area with the highest number of virtual enrollments (186,987)—18% of all virtual enrollments. In fact, since 2013-14, English Language and Literature has consistently been the highest enrollment subject area. Mathematics (17%), Social Sciences and History (16%), and Life and Physical Sciences (15%) were the next highest enrollment subject areas. In high enrollment subject areas (greater than 75,000 virtual enrollments), virtual pass rates varied from a low of 59% in Mathematics to a high of 64% in both Physical, Health, and Safety Education and Social Sciences and History. See Table C1 and Table G6. Six of the 23 subject areas (Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources; Engineering and Technology; Manufacturing; Miscellaneous; Nonsubject Specific; and Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics) had virtual pass rates that were equal to or greater than the non-virtual pass rates for these students. See Table C2. For comparison, in the years just prior to the pandemic, only one or two of the subject areas saw equal 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 (46%) and rose fairly consistently for each subsequent grade level to finish at 63% for 12th grade English/Language Arts. The next three course titles were at the 6-8 grade level, followed by a multi-grade course and two in the K-5 level (grade 1 and kindergarten). See Table C3.

Geometry, Algebra I, and Algebra II had the most Mathematics enrollments, each having over 27,000. Middle school Mathematics courses ranged from 6,900 to 8,800 enrollments. The pass rate across the top 10 most enrolled-in virtual Mathematics courses ranged from a low of 46% for Algebra I to a high of 77% in Consumer Mathematics. See Table C4.

Biology (34,536), Chemistry (20,687), and Earth Science (14,904) were the highest enrollment course titles, responsible for 10% or more of the virtual enrollments in Life and Physical Sciences courses. Three others—Physical Science, Earth and Space Science, and Environmental Science—each had more than 7,000 enrollments. Earth Science had the lowest pass rate (52%) of those in the top 10; the highest was 73% in both Science (grade 6) and Science (grade 7). See Table C5.

For Social Sciences and History, both U.S. History–Comprehensive (22,878) and World History and Geography (19,245) 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 49% in World History and Geography to a high of 77% in Psychology. See Table C6.

Thirty-three AP courses were taken virtually in 2023-24. There were just under 4,900 virtual AP enrollments, up from around 4,000 enrollments the prior year. AP Psychology was the most popular course, accounting for 17% 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 95%.

There were just over 2,600 students who took at least one AP course virtually. For close to half (45%) of these students, AP courses were the only virtual courses taken. Students whose only virtual courses were AP accounted for over 2,200 enrollments or about 45% of the virtual AP enrollments for the year. These students had a virtual pass rate of 91%, four percentage points higher than the state virtual AP pass rate. In addition, of the 925 schools that had virtual enrollments in 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, or 12^th grade, 269 schools (29%) had virtual AP enrollments.

Subject Area Enrollments by Locale

Course enrollment patterns were quite consistent across locales. For instance, in Social Sciences and History, Life and Physical Sciences, and Physical, Health, and Safety Education, the difference in the percentage of virtual enrollments across the locales (Rural, Town, Suburb, and City) was within one to two percentage points. See Table C8. However, pass rates in virtual courses varied across subject areas and locale. For instance, in English Language and Literature, the pass rates ranged from City and Rural at 58% and 60%, respectively, up to 66% for Suburban schools. These trends—City and Rural schools lagging behind the performance of students in other locales and Suburban schools outperforming students in other locales—were also true for the other core subjects of Mathematics, Life and Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences and History. See Table C9. Last year, it was Town and Rural schools that followed the 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 enrollments from males and females was the very same or within one percent of the other. Pass rates, however, showed more variability by student sex. In 15 of the 19 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 65% virtual pass rate whereas males had a 62% pass rate. See Table C10.

Courses by Virtual Method

Schools classified virtual courses into one of three methods: Blended Learning, Digital Learning, or Online Learning. See pages 346 and 347 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 4.0.

• 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 7% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 68%. Digital Learning totaled 9% of the enrollments with a 63% pass rate. Online courses represented most of the enrollments (84%) and yielded a pass rate of 63%. Perhaps worth noting are the striking 1,273 schools (128,675 students) with online course enrollments as compared to the 188 schools (11,590 students) with blended learning enrollments. See Table C11.

Students

Fast Facts

• Over 154,000 K-12 students took at least one virtual course which represented 11% of Michigan public school students.

• Elementary and middle school students each tended to reflect about 2% to 5% of students per grade; high school students reflected 13% to 27% per grade.

• 52% of virtual learners passed all their virtual courses. 17% of virtual learners did not pass any of their virtual courses.

• Of the over 26,000 students who did not pass any of their virtual courses, 33% took only one or two courses. More than half of these students took and did not pass five or more virtual courses, and 18% took and did not pass 11 or more virtual courses.

• Female students had a slightly higher pass rate (65%) than did males (62%).

• Students in poverty made up the majority of virtual learners (64%) and virtual enrollments (71%). Students in poverty also had a lower pass rate (58% v. 77%).

• Part-time virtual learners had higher pass rates (67%) compared to full-time virtual learners (60%).

• Students using special education services made up 13% of the virtual learners.

• Pass rates were highest for students taking the fewest virtual courses. Students taking one to two virtual courses had a pass rate of 80% whereas those taking five or more had virtual pass rates of 61%.

• White students represented 62% of virtual students; African American or Black students were 19%.

• Over 840,000 virtual enrollments were from students whose districts were stable (all enrollments from the same district) throughout the year. These enrollments had a virtual pass rate of 69%.

By Grade Level

For the 2023-24 school year, 154,087 Michigan K-12 students, approximately 11% of students in the state, took at least one virtual course. This change represents approximately a 3% decrease from the previous year, and a 26% decrease from 2021-22. Seventy-five 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 27%. See Table D1.

By Student Sex

There were slightly more females (78,908) enrolled in virtual courses than males (75,209), though from a percentage perspective, each represented about half of the population. Females had a 3% higher pass rate (65% compared to males at 62%), 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 represented 62% of virtual students with African American or Black students totaling the second highest percentage with 19%. While African American or Black students represented 19% of virtual students, approximately 60% of schools enrolled at least one African American or Black student (93% of schools enrolled at least one White student). Asian students had the highest pass rate at 80%. See Table D3 and Table G8. These demographics are similar to the statewide K-12 demographics for 2023-24.See Student Enrollment Count Report.

By Poverty Status

Sixty-four percent of virtual learners were classified as living in poverty. This is 1% higher than the prior year and approximately 10 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 71% of the virtual enrollments for the year. When looking from a school-level perspective, 93% of Michigan schools enrolled at least one student in poverty in a virtual course. Comparatively, 86% of schools enrolled at least one student who was not in poverty in a virtual course. The pass rate for students in poverty (58%) was 19 percentage points lower than students who were not in poverty (77%). See Table D4 and Table G9. In 2022-23, the performance gap was 17 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%). This remained consistent for the 2023-24 year with both students in poverty and those not performing better in their non-virtual courses. See Table D5.

Seventy-four percent of full-time virtual learners were in poverty compared to 60% of part-time virtual learners. The pass rate for full-time virtual learners in poverty was 56% compared to 60% 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 2023-2024 school year. See Table D7. Although overall virtual enrollments have steadily decreased since pandemic highs, this trend has remained relatively stable. From 2020-21 through the 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 2023-24 school year. See the Student Enrollment Counts Report. Seventy-six percent of Michigan schools enrolled a Special Education student in a virtual course. Students using special education services had a virtual pass rate of 56% compared to 64% for those who did not. See Table D8 and Table G10.

Table D9, shows how virtual enrollments varied by a students’ primary disability. Just over 7,900 students had “Specific Learning Disability” listed as their primary disability. This translated to 39% of the virtual learners receiving special education services. The second and third largest groups were students with Other Health Impairments (4,451) and Emotional Impairment (2,667). These groups represented 22% and 13% respectively of virtual learners receiving special education services. Students with Physical Impairment had the highest virtual pass rate at 79%.

Table D10 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 2023-24. These two 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

Table D11 shows virtual learning data for home-schooled and nonpublic students enrolling in a public school to augment their education. There were just over 7,500 such students, and this group of students generated over 34,000 virtual enrollments, an increase of approximately 14,000 enrollments from the 2022-23 year. These students had a 93% virtual pass rate.

By Full-Time or Part-Time

Thirty-three percent of students (50,803) were enrolled in cyber or full-time virtual schools. Students in these schools accounted for 449,793 or 49% of the virtual enrollments for the year. The pass rate for full-time virtual students was 60%. Sixty-eight 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 51% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 67%. See Table D12. The 67% virtual pass rate was six 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 (67,800) that had 75% or more of their enrollments reported as being delivered virtually. Examination of pass rates showed that 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 groups. 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 fourth 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 840,000 (83%) of the virtual enrollments were classified as stable. The pass rate for stable enrollments was 69%. Incoming enrollments to a district represented 7% of the virtual enrollments and had a pass rate of 49%. See Table D17.

When looking at mobility from a poverty perspective, we get a more nuanced picture. Eighty percent of virtual enrollments from students in poverty were stable compared to 90% for students who were not in poverty. The pass rate for stable, in poverty enrollments was 64% but rose to 80% for stable, not in poverty enrollments. For incoming virtual enrollments, there was a nine-percentage point advantage for students who were not in poverty (48% v. 57%). 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 83% followed by City schools at 84%. Suburban schools reported 85% of their enrollments as stable. See Table D19. Virtual pass rates showed a similar pattern. Stable enrollments from Rural schools had a 69% pass rate whereas the pass rate was 73% for Suburban schools. The incoming pass rates tended to lag the stable pass rates 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 compared to part-time (77% v. 88%). The full-time pass rate for stable enrollments also lagged that of students from part-time virtual programs (66% v. 71%). 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, 82% of part-time virtual learners had at least three or more non-virtual enrollments. Of that group, 45% of students passed all their non-virtual courses, 18% 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 84% virtual pass rate. Students who did not pass one or two non-virtual courses had a virtual pass rate of 70%, 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 the same as the prior year. Seventeen percent did not pass any of their virtual enrollments, and 31% passed some, but not all of their virtual enrollments. Students who passed all their virtual courses were responsible for 37% of the virtual enrollments. Students with mixed success generated 48% of the enrollments, and students who did not pass any of their virtual courses accounted for 15% of the virtual enrollments (compared to 14% in 2022-23). See Table D23.

For the students who did not pass any of their virtual courses, 33% only took one or two virtual courses. On the other hand, over 15,000 students did not pass five or more virtual courses, and close to 5,000 students did not pass 11 or more virtual courses. See Table D24 and Table G11. This is the first time since the 2018-19 school year where the percentage of virtual learners who didn’t pass any virtual courses and failed 11 or more exceeded 3% of the population. Further analysis of students failing all their 11 or more virtual courses showed 89% of these students had a single school report data for them. Close to 70% of these students came from full-time virtual programs. Over 800 students used special education services (17%), and over 4,000 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, 47% had a “Withdrawn” status (exited, failing, or passing), and another 24% were classified as “Incomplete.” For those taking 11 or more virtual courses, 39% had a “Withdrawn” status, and 36% were marked “Incomplete.” In each case, only 28% and 24% 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 80% compared to a pass rate of 73% for those taking three to four virtual courses and a pass rate of 61% for students taking five or more virtual courses. About 34% of students took one or two virtual courses; however, 54% were found to have taken five or more virtual courses during the year. See Table D25.

A new table in last year’s report, Table D26, shows pass rate by virtual method and virtual usage. Blended Learning students had the highest overall pass rate (68%) and specifically, those taking one to two virtual courses were among the highest pass rates at 79%. Students enrolled in one to two Online Courses were also among the highest pass rates at 80%. For the Digital Learning and Online Course virtual usage methods, pass rates decreased as virtual course usage increased.

State Assessment

Fast Facts

• 41% of 11th grade virtual learners who took the SAT scored proficient in the Reading/Writing component. 17% tested proficient in Math.

• For 8th grade students, the percentages were 55 and 17, respectively.

• Higher proficiency rates on state assessments were seen with higher non-virtual performance and with students who were not in poverty.

• Higher percentages of part-time virtual learners reached levels of proficiency on state assessment measures than their full-time counterparts.

By Subject Area

State assessment data can be used to provide an independent measure of student performance. Based on SAT and M-STEP data from students in 11th grade, virtual learners showed lower percentages reaching proficiency on the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (SAT), Mathematics (SAT), Science (M-STEP) and Social Studies (M-STEP) examinations than the statewide proficiency rates. Forty-one percent of the 11th grade virtual learners tested proficient in Evidence-Based Reading and Writing, and 17% were proficient in Mathematics. For Science, 30% tested proficient whereas Social Studies had 32% 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, 27% of virtual learners in poverty scored proficient on the 11th grade Evidence-Based Reading and Writing exam compared to 59% for those who were not in poverty. For Mathematics, only 9% of 8th grade virtual learners in poverty scored proficient compared to 37% 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 13 percentage points for 11th grade Mathematics and 14 points for 8th grade Mathematics. See Table E7 and Table E8.

Maps

Berrien, Alpena-Montmorency-Alcona, and Muskegon Area ISDs/RESAs had over 20% of students in their service areas take a virtual course in 2023-24. In total, there were 10 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 three ISDs/RESAs (Macomb, Livingston, and Manistee) had less than 5% of their students take at least one virtual course. See Figure 2.

Figure 2. 2023-24 Percentage of Students Who Took a Virtual Course (Non-Cyber) by ISD

Over one in four students (almost 5,700 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-five of the 56 ISDs had 100 or more students attending a PSA cyber school. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. 2023-24 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, has continued to produce mixed results. 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 648 Michigan schools with virtual pass rates of 80% or higher, reflecting 46% of all schools in the state with virtual learners. These schools reported 56,860 virtual learners or about 37% 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 (35%) and 100 or more students (27%). See Table F1. Some offered few enrollments (116 schools had one to nine virtual enrollments) while others offered many (292 schools had 100 or more). See Table F2. They also varied in the number of course titles offered. Thirty-eight 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-six percent of LEA schools with virtual programs had schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. For PSA schools, 38% 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 and Suburban schools had almost half (47%) of their schools reach this threshold, and City schools were close behind at 45%. See Table F5. These schools are provide evidence of virtual learning success 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 (89%) were considerably closer to the White pass rate (91%) 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 (58%) that was 19 percentage points lower than those virtual students who were not in poverty. In these 648 schools, the virtual pass rate for students in poverty rose to 88%—considerably closer to the 93% virtual pass rate for the students in those schools who were not in poverty. In these higher performing schools, students in poverty continued to represent a large percentage of virtual learners (49%) and virtual enrollments (53%), but those percentages were considerably smaller than the 64% of virtual learners and 71% 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-nine percent of Low FRL schools with virtual learners achieved virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. The virtual pass rate was 60% of the Mid-Low FRL schools, 40% of Mid-High FRL schools, and 30% 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-seven 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 76 full-time programs (20%) 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 587 general education schools in Michigan that achieved schoolwide virtual pass rates of 80% or higher. These schools represented 52% of general education schools with virtual programs. For alternative programs, 50 schools reached this mark. As a percentage of alternative programs, it represented just 19% of such schools, indicating that while it is 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 648 schools, there were 11,664 virtual learners who took a minimum of three virtual courses and had data for a minimum of three non-virtual courses. Eighty 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 14th 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

As Table 1 makes clear, the huge influx of virtual learners during the pandemic has mostly subsided and levels seem to be more in line with pre-pandemic trends. Unfortunately, the reduction in virtual learners and enrollments has been accompanied by an 11-percentage point drop in the virtual pass rate since 2020-21.

As we predicted in last year’s report, the virtual pass rate continued to shift toward pre-pandemic levels. We have been monitoring several factors likely to impact the rate. The first is changes in schools entering and existing. One hundred forty-four new schools were represented in this year’s data while 198 schools from last year dropped out because they didn’t have any virtual learners this year. The new schools added close to 28,000 virtual enrollments, roughly the same amount as the departing schools contributed last year. Interestingly, the new schools outperformed the departing schools; new schools had a 77% pass rate this year while the schools that left had a 70% pass rate the prior year. Obviously, the weight of this change on the pass rate was minimal compared to schools who were in both last year and this year. There were 1,277 schools in both years. The pass rate for these schools dropped from 65% to 63%.

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 40% of the virtual enrollments, 4 percentage points higher than the prior year. 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 21 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 71% of virtual enrollments, three percentage points higher than the prior year. With the K-5 pass rates at 80% and the 6-8th grade pass rate at 70%, enrollments at these levels tend to prop up the overall virtual pass rate. For instance, if the elementary, middle school, and high school virtual pass rates remained the same, but the proportion of virtual enrollments were the same as the 2019-20 school year, we would have seen the virtual pass rate drop by about 1.5%. Therefore, if virtual enrollments continue to shift toward a larger percentage of high school enrollments, a slight decline in the overall pass rate is predictable.

Given the 2023-24 figures for these three key factors, we predict there is likely more correction coming. Thus, we believe the overall pass rate will continue to backslide. That said, there is optimism that the floor may be closer to 60% rather than the 55% that was consistently observed prior to the pandemic.

On the positive side, the report also captured examples of schools and students benefiting from virtual learning. Forty-six percent of virtual learners attended 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 significantly impacted data from 2019-20 through the 2022-23 reports. It may still be impacting this year’s data; 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 2023-2024;

• Educational Entity Master (EEM);

• Michigan Student Data System Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL) – Collection Year 2023-2024; and

• Michigan’s K-12 Virtual Learning Effectiveness Report, 2022-23 – Used for comparing this year’s data with the 2022-23 school year.

Because the data for this report incorporates a 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 4.0, the virtual method field indicates “the type of virtual instruction the student is receiving.” (See page 346).

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 demonstrated that such efforts yield a low percentage of the virtual enrollments. This effort was 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: 2023-24, 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 324 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 4.0 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. 2023-24 Virtual Enrollment Counts and Pass Rates by Number of Virtual Enrollments Per Student/SCED Code Pair

Table A2. 2023-24 Percentage of Students by Total Student Enrollment Counts (Virtual and Non-Virtual) and Full- or Part-Time Schools

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 341 of the Michigan Student Data System Collection Details Manual Version 4.0. 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

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” (8% 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 that allow interested readers to draw their own conclusions and to calculate their own formulas for many of the pass rates reported.

Appendix B – School Tables

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

Table B1. Two Year Comparison (2022-23 and 2023-24) of Virtual Enrollment Data with Pass Rates

Note: The # schools in the “2022-23 Only” row had 27,830 enrollments and a 70% pass rate for that year. The 1,277 schools in both years had a pass rate of 65% for 2022-23.

Table B2. Virtual Enrollment Differences for Schools Reporting Virtual Learners in Both 2022-23 and 2023-24

Table B3. Virtual Pass Rate Differences for Schools Reporting Virtual Learners in Both 2022-23 and 2023-24

Table B4. 2023-24 K-12 Virtual Enrollment Data by Grade Level

Table B5. 2023-24 Pass Rate Comparison for Students in Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses by Grade Level

Table B6. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by School Pass Rate

Table B7. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Entity Type

Note: Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality.

Table B8. 2023-24 Number of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Entity Type

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B9. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Full-Time (FT) Virtual or Cyber School by Entity Type

Note: Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality.

Table B10. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Students and Enrollments from Full-Time (FT) Virtual or Cyber Schools with Virtual Pass Rates by Entity Type

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B11. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Part-Time (PT) Virtual Schools by Entity Type

Table B12. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Students and Enrollments from Part-Time (PT) Virtual Schools with Virtual Pass Rates by Entity Type

Note: Because some students took courses across multiple entity types, a student may be counted toward more than one Entity Type. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique students. Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality. Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B13. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by School Emphasis

Table B14. 2023-24 Number of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by School Emphasis

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B15. 2023-24 Virtual Pass Rates for General Education and Alternative Education Schools by Entity Type

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B16. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Number of Virtual Enrollments per School

Table B17. 2023-24 Percentage of Schools by Ratio of Virtual Courses to Student and School Pass Rate

Table B18. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools and Virtual Enrollments by Locale

Table B19. 2023-24 Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by Virtual Enrollment Totals and Locale

Table B20. 2023-24 Virtual Pass Rate by Locale

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B21. 2023-24 Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by Building Pass Rate and Locale

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B22. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Schools with Virtual Enrollments by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Categories

Note: All Michigan K-12 schools with building codes were used to calculate the state figures. State data are available through MI School Data.

Table B23. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Virtual Pass Rate by School Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Categories

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B24. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Students, and Enrolls for Schools with 1,000 or More Virtual Enrollments with Courses Per Student and Pass Rate by Entity Type

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table B25. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Students, and Enrolls for Schools with Less Than 1,000 Virtual Enrollments with Courses Per Student and Pass Rate by Entity Type

Table B26. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Students, and Enrolls for Schools with 1,000 or More Virtual Enrollments with Courses Per Student and Pass Rate by School Emphasis

Table B27. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Students, and Enrolls for Schools with Less Than 1,000 Virtual Enrollments with Courses Per Student and Pass Rate by School Emphasis

Appendix C – Course Tables

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

Table C1. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Subject Area

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple subject areas, row counts may not equal to the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality. Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table C2. 2023-24 Pass Rate Comparison for Students in Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses by Subject Area

Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table C3. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in English Language and Literature Courses

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple titles, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. % of Enrolls based on overall total of 186,987 for this subject area.

Table C4. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Mathematics Courses

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple titles, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. % of Enrolls based on overall total of 176,483 for this subject area.

Table C5. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Life and Physical Sciences Courses

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple titles, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. % of Enrolls based on overall total of 154,632 for this subject area.

Table C6. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Course Title for the Top 10 Most Enrolled in Social Sciences and History Courses

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple titles, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. % of Enrolls based on overall total of 165,739 for this subject area.

Table C7. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate for AP Courses

Note: An additional 530 enrollments had a course type listed as Advanced Placement but did not match an AP SCED Code. Similarly, there existed 84 local course titles with AP in the title that did not have an AP SCED Code. Thus, it is very likely the data above underreports the number of students taking AP courses virtually. Since schools and students may have enrollments in multiple titles, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students. Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality. Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table C8. 2023-24 Virtual Enrollments Percentage by Locale and Subject Area

Table C9. 2023-24 Virtual Enrollment Pass Rates by Locale and Subject Area

Note: Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table C10. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Student Sex and Subject Area

Note: Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality. Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table C11. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, and Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Enrollments and Pass Rate by Virtual Method

Note: Since schools and students may have enrollments across multiple Virtual Methods, row counts may not equal the total. The total row, however, reflects the number of unique schools and students.

Appendix D – Student Tables

Note: Click on the hyperlinked table number ro return to the section of the report that discusses the table.

Table D1. 2023-24 Number of Schools and Virtual Students with Percentage of Virtual Students and Percent Year over Year Change

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

Table D2. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Student Sex

Note: The sum of the number of schools and students exceeds the total number because some schools enrolled students of both sexes and some students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student as one sex, but the other school reported a different value. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D3. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Race/Ethnicity

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

Table D4. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Poverty Status

Note: The sum of the number of schools and students exceeds the total number because some schools enrolled students across both poverty statuses and some students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student as one poverty status, but the other school reported a different value. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D5. 2023-24 Pass Rate Comparison for Students in Their Virtual and Non-Virtual Courses by Poverty Status

Note: The Virtual Pass Rate – Non-Virtual Pass Rate calculation was run prior to rounding. That rounding effect accounts for what may appear to be calculation errors.

Table D6. 2023-24 Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments in Poverty with Pass Rate by Virtual Type

Table D7. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students by Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Category

Note: The sum of the number of students exceeds the total number because some students had enrollments across categories. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students. Also, all Michigan K-12 schools with building codes were used to calculate the state figures. The 1.4M total also reflects the number of unique MI K-12 students.

Table D8. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Special Education Status

Note: The sum of the school and student rows exceeds the total number because some students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student under a specific special education status, but the other school reported a different status. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D9. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Primary Disability

Note: The sum of the student rows exceeds the total number because some students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student with a specific primary disability, but the other school reported a different primary disability. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students. Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality. Additionally, Pass Rate data are not reported (NR) if there were fewer than 10 schools, fewer than 25 students, or fewer than 100 enrollments.

Table D10. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students Compared to All MI Students with IEPs by Primary Disability

Note: The sum of the student rows exceeds the total number because some students had enrollments across multiple schools where one school listed the student with a specific primary disability, but the other school reported a different primary disability. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students. Data are not reported (NR) out of caution for confidentiality.

Table D11. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Home-School/Nonpublic Student Status

Note: The sum of the student rows exceeds the total number because a few students had enrollments that were recorded for both statuses. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D12. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by Full- or Part-Time Status

Note: The sum of the student rows exceeds the total number because some students had enrollments in both full-time and part-time virtual schools. The unique total was used to emphasize the true number of virtual students.

Table D13. 2023-24 Pass Rate Comparison for Full- and Part-Time Virtual Students by Virtual Subset

Note: There were 24,887 non-virtual enrollments reported for Full-Time Virtual students.

Table D14. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Taken Virtually

Table D15. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments from LEA Schools Only with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Taken Virtually

Table D16. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments from PSA Schools Only with Pass Rates by Students’ Percentage of Enrollments Taken Virtually

Table D17. 2023-24 Number of Schools, Virtual Students, Virtual Enrollments with Percentage of Virtual Students and Virtual Enrollments and Virtual Pass Rate by District Mobility

Table D18. 2023-24 Number and Percentage of Virtual Enrollments with Pass Rates by Known Poverty Status and District Mobility