On the heels of national research studies that have uncovered troubling findings on the performance of virtual charter schools, a new report provides solid, commonsense policy suggestions aimed at improving online schools and holding them more accountable for results. Three national charter advocacy organizations—NAPCS, NACSA, and 50CAN—united to produce these joint recommendations.
The paper’s recommendations focus on three key issues: authorizing, student enrollment, and funding. When it comes to authorizers, the authors suggest restricting oversight duties for statewide e-schools to state or regional entities; capping authorizing fees; and creating “virtual-specific goals” to which schools are held accountable. Such goals, which would be part of the authorizer-school contract, could include matters of enrollment, attendance, achievement, truancy, and finances. On enrollment, the authors cite evidence that online education may not be a good fit for every child and suggest that states study whether to create admissions standards for online schools (in contrast to open enrollment). They also recommend limits to enrollment growth based on performance; for instance, a high-performing school would have few (if any) caps on growth, while a low-performer would face strict limits. Finally, the report touches on funding policies, including recommendations to fund online schools based on their costs and to implement performance-based funding (an approach that authorities in Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah have already piloted for online schools). Interestingly, the report notes how the design of the performance-based funding model varies from state-to-state. New Hampshire, for example, takes a mastery-based approach—with the teacher verifying “mastery”—while Florida requires the passage of an end-of-course exam, as determined by the state, to trigger payment.
Perhaps the paper’s most intriguing idea is that states consider decoupling virtual schools from their charter laws. They write, “States may need to consider governing full-time virtual schools outside of the state’s charter school law, simply as full-time virtual public schools.” Indeed, laws and regulations crafted with brick-and-mortar charter schools in mind may be poorly suited to the unique environment of online schools. Enrollment and funding policies are just two examples of the usefulness of a separate set of rules (e-schools, however, should not be held to different academic standards).
State policy makers, including those in our home state of Ohio (a state with a large e-school sector), should pay close attention to this report. As my colleague Chad Aldis noted, “Virtual schools have become and will remain an important part of our education system.” If policy misalignment is at least partly behind the poor results we’ve observed, employing the recommendations of this report would be a major step forward for online education.
SOURCE: “A Call to Action to Improve the Quality of Full-Time Virtual Charter Public Schools,” National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and 50CAN (June 2016).
