In a previous post, I explained course access and its potential to revolutionize school choice in Ohio. The best example of this is the Florida Virtual School (FLVS), which Brookings evaluated in 2014. But Ohio wouldn’t have to copy Florida’s entire model. Instead, it could create a unique one complementing its successful CTE and College Credit Plus programs. While there are plenty of ways to get to the mountaintop, here are a few ideas for how Ohio could establish a pilot program that—if it successfully meets the needs of students—could be grown into a statewide program.
Governance
FLVS was created as the nation’s first statewide, Internet-based public high school. Students can enroll full-time, but approximately 97 percent of students are part-time. Students who are enrolled at a traditional school (district, charter, or private) can sign up part-time for a course for a multitude of reasons: to make up course credit, to take a class not offered at their schools, or to accelerate their learning. Just imagine the possibilities for schools that want to incorporate mastery grading or competency-based education!
To provide Ohio students with similar options, policymakers in the Buckeye State could create a virtual “school” that houses dozens of courses from many providers. Instead of enrolling students full-time, as existing online schools already do, or charging students and families hundreds of dollars per course (which is what many ilearnOhio courses cost), this organization would offer Buckeye students free online courses to complement the work of their full-time schools. Policymakers could choose to run this organization through the Ohio Department of Education or establish an independent but state-accountable body to oversee its operation. The overseeing office would be responsible for managing the site, recruiting and approving the providers who offer courses, evaluating the performance of providers, and delivering status reports to legislators and the state board.
Free is the key word here, because if courses aren’t free, they’re not truly available for thousands of low-income students like those I used to teach. In Ohio, CTE and College Credit Plus are free as long as the participating student selects a public college. Many online courses through ilearnOhio are not—thus the need for a separate type of “school” that houses free online courses instead of “fee-based” online courses. This is what will make the final part of a course access policy—online courses—such a hard sell: Districts won’t want to hear that they’re required to allow students to sign up for courses, and they really won’t want to hear that they’re going to have to pay a fee for each course. They won’t like that the state—not the district—will get to determine the maximum number of classes a student can sign up for (otherwise, districts would be able to cap the maximum number at one or even zero). The fact that the state will not require students to take an online course for graduation will offer little consolation.
But if money is the catalyst for knee-jerk anger, districts should remember that the money spent on course access will be chump change compared with what it costs a school when a student transfers somewhere else. For the dozens of schools that complain about losing students to open enrollment, charters, or private schools, course access would be a lifeline. Offering more and different classes that can be personalized for individual learners—without losing students and at a fraction of the price that it would cost to offer them in person—is in the best interest of districts and students.
Nevertheless, the overseeing office can ensure buy-in from districts by emphasizing potential solutions. Does a district have a ton of gifted high-achievers who need to extend their learning? There are courses for that. Does a graduating senior love the charter he’s enrolled in, but need a few more credits in order to meet graduation requirements? There are classes for that too. Does a rural or urban district want to offer foreign languages or more electives, but can’t afford the expense of hiring teachers, purchasing curriculum and textbooks, or finding a place to house the class? Ditto. Does a suburban district want to offer more AP classes without having to ensure that they recruit a minimum number of students to enroll—potentially leading to students who aren’t ready for AP being in AP? There are courses for that too. Districts save money they’d lose when kids transfer, parents and kids get the classes they want, and the overseeing office holds course providers—not districts—accountable for results.
Funding
Since this new and improved version of online course access would begin as a pilot program, it makes sense for it to be classified as a funding proposal in the budget, similar to the way that competency-based education or the Straight A Fund started. This initial funding would allow for the creation of an overseeing office, the construction of a site, and the recruitment of providers with track records of past success. All education expenses would be funded through deductions from districts and charter schools whose students participate in the program. The district would pay a flat fee per student, per course, only paying for what students actually use and not what districts predict will be used. Since school funding always generates some controversy, policymakers should investigate how other states charge for course choice to see if a better mechanism might be available. For instance, some charge a certain percentage of per-pupil funding, while others use only state funds. (See here for more details).
Providers would receive an initial payment when students enrolled. However, the majority of the payment would be withheld until the student successfully completed the course. This is a form of academic accountability, but it would also ensure that state and local dollars are spent only on effective education. Many course access programs in other states also include a performance component related to funding. Eventually, the state could offer bonuses and incentives to providers who ensured high scores, consistently high completion rates, and parental or student satisfaction.
Accountability
The most important aspect of Ohio’s virtual course access policy is that it leads to student achievement and growth. To ensure that students are completing courses and learning the necessary content, accountability measures must be put in place. Many states with course access include accountability systems (Louisiana’s measures are particularly interesting). As always, the trick will be having sufficient accountability in place to increase the likelihood of strong student outcomes without constraining the program with bureaucratic red tape. Here’s a look at a few accountability measures that Ohio policymakers should consider including in their plan.
- Course approval: Providers shouldn’t be able to offer courses to schools without first being approved by the overseeing office. The approval process could include an application review, interviews, and perhaps even an additional review by an independent expert panel. Regardless of length, the key is that nothing but the best courses end up being offered to Ohio kids.
- Course review: The overseeing office, ODE, or an independent board should complete a structured review of the content of each course. Reviews could be conducted by Ohio teachers and content experts and should examine course alignment to state standards, instruction, assignments, assessments, student support, and other details that ensure a positive student experience and academic success.
- Stakeholder satisfaction: Surveys of parents and students should be conducted each year. The results from these surveys should be part of public accountability records, included in legislative reports, and made available online. (For an example of FLVS survey results, see here).
- Academic accountability: Just like schools and CTE programs are subject to report cards, online courses offered via course access should be subject to public accountability. Although course access report cards may not include all the same components as Ohio’s current school report cards, they should include course completion rates, end-of-course assessment results, and AP assessment results when applicable.
- Financial accountability: Budgets and expenditures should be posted online and independently audited (see here for examples of FLVS annual financial reports).
- Yearly legislative reports: Each year, the overseeing office should compile and deliver a report for state legislators and the state board of education. This report should include course review data, stakeholder satisfaction data, budgets, and academic results. (See here for an example of an FLVS legislative report).
***
Although Ohio already has two components of a solid course access policy—CTE programs and the College Credit Plus program—the online course component is still missing. While many people are hesitant to put their trust in online learning, there is evidence that when implemented well, online course access can take school choice and student learning to the next level. Policymakers in Ohio should consider a pilot project that investigates the potential of online course access—while being careful to ensure accountability in the process.
