By Terry Ryan
Like every state, Ohio has been hard hit by the Great Recession. The state's current $50.5 billion biennial budget was made whole in 2009 by one-time federal stimulus dollars, billions in budget cuts and clever accounting maneuvers. It is estimated that the state will face at least an $8 billion deficit in its next two-year budget.
As kindergarten-through-12th-grade education spending represents about 40 percent of the state's budget, a sizeable portion of these funding cuts will likely need to come out of allocations for schools. Schools are already starting to feel budget woes. Teachers are being let go. More classes are being taught by those teachers who have been in schools the longest, regardless of effectiveness, because of "last in, first out" rules. Class sizes are expanding. Extracurricular activities are being eliminated. School libraries are closing. And some schools are pondering a move to a four-day school week.
Is there any way out of this seemingly irreversible downward spiral?
Many states are turning to computer-based technologies as a way to ensure the delivery of high-quality instruction to students even during times of funding cuts. This idea is not foreign to the Buckeye State where there are currently 29 virtual schools (or e-schools) serving about 25,000 students. Yet, this is but a drop in the bucket in terms of what is possible for the state's 1.8 million K-12 public school students.
Further, there is little happening as it relates to the creation of "hybrid" or "blended" models of instruction that marry computer-based instruction with targeted face-to-face instruction with teachers. In fact, Ohio's current school funding system can't fund such models. It's structured to fund only classroom-based instruction or full-time, online learning. This must change.
An important place to start is by removing Ohio's current moratorium on new e-schools. This moratorium does nothing to hold accountable the state's existing virtual schools. It punishes new providers (many of whom have a proven track record of success in other states) for the misdeeds of an earlier generation of schools, and locks in mediocrity. It restricts new opportunities for school districts and charter schools to come up with alternative and cost-effective methods of instruction. And it limits learning opportunities for families and their children.
We can look to Georgia for guidance on the smart way to open the Buckeye State up to new virtual school providers. Unlike Ohio, Georgia is committed to helping new high-quality virtual schools open. The state realizes this sector is evolving rapidly and new great school models are being developed continuously. Georgia is open to new e-school models and even to hybrid models, but vets them based on their quality and performance potential.
For example, five e-schools applied to open in the Peach State for 2010-11,but only two were selected. The Georgia Charter Schools Commission -- that state's statewide charter school authorizer -- agreed to authorize the two new virtual schools through a rigorous process that demonstrates Georgia's commitment to smart accountability, even while venturing into new territory.
In explaining why applicants were rejected, the commission made clear they rejected applicants because they did not believe the proposed models could deliver high-quality instruction to the targeted students. In one case, the commission wrote that it "was concerned about a proposal that subjects an extraordinary number of students to unacceptable academic standards."
In contrast, one of the schools approved -- Provost Academy Georgia -- presented an academic plan that went above and beyond what's required by state and federal standards, delineating specific benchmark goals for graduation rates, SAT and ACT performance, and state assessments.
Georgia has other provisions that help ensure smart accountability among e-schools and possible hybrid models. For one, it's indisputable that the nonprofit governing board owns the school. Law stipulates that schools are allowed to contract for services from a for-profit operator. But, it requires charter schools to be organized and operated by a Georgia nonprofit corporation. The law requires that "substantial independence" be demonstrated between the nonprofit corporation and the for-profit entity so as to "preserve the public interest and avoid conflicts of interest."
Ohio can learn from Georgia. It should strengthen charter accountability by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of school operators (for-profit and otherwise) and their nonprofit charter school boards. As it implements more rigorous accountability measures it should lift the ironclad moratorium on e-schools.
As Georgia illustrates, the state can expand innovative programming for its students while also maintaining smart accountability. Done well, this can improve instruction while reducing costs.
Terry Ryan is vice president for Ohio Programs and Policy of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.