Remote learning is less effective than in-person schooling for K–12 students

What's this about?

People disagree about whether remote learning helps K–12 students learn as well as school classrooms. Most proof says full-time remote learning often leads to less learning.

What supporters say

• During the COVID-19 school shut downs, many students fell behind, most of all in math.
• Poorer students often lacked good internet, a device, quiet space, or adult help at home.
• Some full-time online schools show low test scores, more dropouts, and too little student support.
• Remote learning can make students feel alone and can limit help from teachers and classmates.

What critics say

• Online learning does not always work worse than classroom learning.
• Some students can do well with online lessons that include talks, quick teacher feedback, and group work.
• Blended learning, which mixes online work and classroom time, can work well for some students.
• The COVID-19 shut downs gave schools little time to plan, so they may not show online learning at its best.

The bottom line

On average, remote learning works less well than in-person school, especially when it happens full-time or with poor support. Yet well-made online or blended plans can help some students learn well.

Remote learning is generally less effective than in-person schooling for K–12 students on average, especially when it is full-time, poorly supported or introduced in an emergency. But the evidence does not show that every online program performs worse: well-designed, interactive and blended models can work well for some students.

The case for

The clearest evidence comes from the pandemic, when school closures moved millions of children into remote instruction. Studies of 2020 to 2022 found substantial average learning losses, especially in mathematics, with the largest setbacks among disadvantaged students (see Figure 2). Teachers also reported lower participation and more unfinished learning during this period 1.

Remote schooling can deepen existing gaps because children do not begin with the same resources. Reliable broadband, a suitable device, quiet space to work and an adult available to help are unevenly distributed among families. Research and UNICEF data link these differences to unequal participation and outcomes during remote learning (see Figure 3) 2.

There are also concerns about full-time virtual schools outside the emergency pandemic setting. A U.S. review found repeated questions about academic performance, completion rates, enrollment practices, accountability and the level of support offered to students. One observational study also found particular dropout risks for Hispanic or Latino students enrolled in online K–12 schools 3.

The drawbacks go beyond test scores. Emergency remote learning was associated with reports of stress, isolation and weaker connections to school. Regular feedback from teachers, interaction with classmates and easy access to support are important to learning, and remote settings can make all three harder to sustain 4.

The case against

The claim becomes too sweeping if it suggests that online education is inherently inferior. Some meta-analyses have found that online and blended learning can produce academic results that are neutral or positive compared with traditional classrooms. The strongest outcomes often come from blended learning, which combines online tools with in-person teaching 5.

Technology can also improve particular tasks within K–12 education. A meta-analysis of mathematics instruction found benefits when digital tools were used for focused purposes such as practice, rapid feedback, visual explanations or collaboration. But this evidence supports technology as part of teaching, not as a replacement for full-time classroom schooling 6.

Remote options can also matter where ordinary school attendance is difficult or impossible. A review of virtual schooling in rural areas found that it could expand course choices and offer greater flexibility. UNICEF examples likewise describe supported, multi-channel programs designed to reach marginalized learners. These approaches may improve access, though they do not show that remote instruction produces higher academic achievement than in-person school 7.

Much depends on the quality of the program. Stronger remote models tend to include skilled teaching, frequent feedback, peer interaction, thoughtful course design, reliable technology and substantial support for students. The K–12 research base remains uneven, however, and many favorable studies cover older learners, mixed settings or blended programs rather than ordinary full-time virtual schools.

The bottom line

The evidence supports the claim in a qualified sense: on average, K–12 students appear to fare worse in emergency or fully remote schooling than in comparable in-person settings. The learning losses and inequality exposed during the pandemic, together with concerns about many virtual-school providers, point in that direction 1 2 3.

Still, remote delivery was not the only force at work during pandemic closures. Illness, family stress, staffing shortages and unequal school reopening also affected results. And students who choose online courses may differ from those who remain in classrooms, making simple comparisons difficult.

The most defensible conclusion is that remote learning is a higher-risk substitute for in-person schooling, not a universally inferior method. Well-supported and often blended programs can be effective, while remote options can provide essential access for some students. But there is still too little broad, causal evidence showing that well-designed full-time remote K–12 schooling matches ordinary in-person education overall.