“Most changes in the ways schools operate can be thought of as tools,” write Gene Glass, Kevin Welner, and Justin Bathon in their recent policy brief. “Used well, such tools can be beneficial; used poorly, they can be harmful.” Agreed. The problem is that these authors seem convinced of online learning’s malevolence. Their evidence is the presence of for-profits in the digital-ed sector. Behind the proliferation of online schools—usually charters—the authors see corporate interests determined to squeeze dollars out of a poorly regulated yet potentially vast market with few consumer protections. Private companies, they charge, will reap fortunes by offering inferior products at inflated prices, enabled by cozy relationships with lawmakers. Further, they assert, research on the effects of digital learning is minimal, arguing that this “evidentiary void” is reason enough to slow expansion of online-ed programs. (As if any innovation came with an issued-in-advance “proof of quality” guarantee!) The conclusion is thus drawn: In all but the most limited and tightly regulated forms, digital schooling will only wreak havoc on the American education system. For those with even a modicum of faith in school choice and the free market, theirs is an exasperating argument—which is why the general reasonableness of Glass’s, Welner’s, and Bathon’s policy proposals is so surprising. They recommend that states: authenticate student work, accredit online schools, audit their finances, and regulate aspects of instruction and function. OK! Of course digital learning could go off the tracks without thoughtful oversight and planning; advocates would be wise to lead the charge for rational (yet minimal) regulation before the fear mongering of digital learning’s critics gains traction.
Gene V. Glass, Kevin Welner, and Justin Bathon, Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Venture in Need of Public Regulation (Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, October 2011).
