Course choice: The ideal post-pandemic policy solution

Michael Brickman

4.8.2022

Editor’s note: This was first published by the American Enterprise Institute.

Nearly a decade ago, it appeared there might be a détente between those who support only public school choice and those who also support private school choice options, such as vouchers and tuition tax credits. At the time, both groups found a lot to like in so-called course choice policies (often called “course access” among progressives). These state laws allowed students to take a course or two offered somewhere other than their assigned school district.

At its most basic, course choice is a way to drive participation in offerings such as dual enrollment or Advanced Placement college courses, vocational training experiences, or programs offered in schools by third parties such as Junior Achievement or Jobs for America’s Graduates. Course choice policies tend to weave together a variety of existing and widely supported policies under a single funding umbrella to help drive such participation. However, the major innovation of these policies is to allow funds to flow easily to whichever course offerings parents prefer, rather than allowing school boards, administrators, or district procurement officers to stand between parents and the offerings they would like for their children.

In some states, the course choices available to students are offered by nearby school districts and the state’s (more often public) colleges and universities. In other places, however, other virtual or in-person providers can be added to the mix, such as private schools, providers of career-focused courses or youth apprenticeships, or even providers of tutoring services or services for children with special needs. Funding either can be a separate appropriation or can come out of the funding a local school district already receives.

In either case, a supplement can be provided for transportation or materials. Each state’s policy usually sets deadlines for adding courses to a statewide catalog, notifying parents about these offerings, allowing children to apply, and providing acceptance letters. Each state also sets policies to hold providers accountable, decide whether a local district can block a student’s participation if a course is too expensive or does not meet graduation requirements, and determine what happens if a student drops out or does not complete coursework.

On one hand, such offerings are useful to supporters of a more expansive vision for school choice because they boost the customer base for school choice beyond those families “stuck in failing schools” or those strongly dissatisfied with their assigned school for other reasons. On the other hand, supporters of public school choice, and leaders of these schools themselves, find a lot to like with these policies because they may soften parents’ concerns and convince them to keep their child enrolled in public schools. Course choice can also reduce the pressure (both financial and political) on school districts to have a jack-of-all-trades course catalog.

Both sides can appreciate that, like other forms of both public and private choice, these options promote educational opportunity, particularly in public schools where funding is tight or teachers of specialized subjects are hard to come by.¹ Another benefit is that course choice is infinitely customizable and can be tailored to suit the needs and priorities of blue states and red states alike.² Many states began to recognize these benefits, and, by 2014, course choice policies had been authorized in 10 states. This moment of support quickly came and went, though, and progressives and conservatives went their separate ways shortly thereafter.³

Conservatives turned to focus more on then-emergent education savings accounts (ESAs), which share many similarities to course choice policies in that they allow families to customize a child’s education.⁴ They differ, however, in that ESAs, unlike course choice, are typically designed to serve the entirety of a child’s educational needs, and families often use them solely to pay private school tuition.

Some progressives, meanwhile, focused more on charter schools, while many others surrendered the school choice fight entirely due to growing political polarization and resurgent teachers union power. In some states, course choice laws withered or were repealed. The bill I helped Gov. Scott Walker write in Wisconsin was one such law, after the state’s colleges and universities lobbied for repeal over the reimbursement rate they received for dual enrollment courses, which was lower than they received under prior dual enrollment policies.

However, course choice policies may now be ready for another moment in the sun. As students return to school from pandemic-induced closures and often-ineffective attempts at full-time remote learning, academic deficits are becoming quickly apparent. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper found a significant drop in test scores that was far worse in places with less in-person instruction during the pandemic.⁵ A study from McKinsey & Company found that students lost an average of five months of progress in mathematics and four months in reading while widening “preexisting opportunity and achievement gaps, hitting historically disadvantaged students hardest.”⁶ A World Bank, UNESCO, and UNICEF study estimated that the potential loss of lifetime earnings due to the pandemic’s effect on learning is $17 trillion in present value terms.⁷

Tragically, we can expect schools to spend the coming years, and likely the remainder of many students’ academic careers, trying to catch students up. Most of this focus, and rightly so, will be in core subjects such as reading and mathematics. To fill the gaps in other subject areas and account for the fact that, even in core subjects, there will likely be an even greater distribution of students’ ability levels in each classroom than is normally the case, course choice may be an ideal policy prescription.

The timing for passing course choice legislation is especially opportune if programs can be operational before September 2024,⁸ the deadline for states and local school districts to spend billions in federal Covid-19 relief funds.⁹ Some states, such as Idaho and Oklahoma, have already capitalized on this opportunity by directing a portion of these funds directly to parents so they can choose the educational courses, materials, or services that are best for their children.¹⁰ Unfortunately, most other states are merely directing these funds through the same funding streams, programs, and bureaucracies that have struggled throughout Covid-19 and hoping for the best.

Momentum for course choice policies is also growing in other states. Indiana passed House Bill 1438 in 2021, which changes the state’s existing course choice law to make it more difficult for local school districts to deny their students access to courses and to allow public schools themselves to offer courses to non-full-time students. The bill also improves outreach to families about the course choice program.¹¹ Utah also improved its law by passing Senate Bill 226, which allows third-party providers to apply to the state board of education for the right to participate in their course choice program alongside the state’s K–12 schools (charter and public) and colleges and universities, which were already approved to participate.¹²

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania House Bill 1330 would create “a central repository of online courses accessible to all public schools, nonpublic schools, home education programs, and the general public.”¹³ Even Wisconsin’s repealed course choice law has resurfaced in a bill that would also dramatically expand the state’s voucher program.¹⁴

There is still much to be done to expand course choice programs in the wake of the pandemic. Advocates wishing to empower parents as they seek to help their children overcome learning loss and prepare for the next steps in their educational journey should consider several factors in designing and advocating for course choice legislation. They should reflect on their state’s unique political landscape and balance what they might prefer against the current level of support for educational choice. Political support for choice is not static, however, and as course choice programs turn more moms and dads into “school choice parents,” the programs themselves may find more room to grow. Course choice policies are the type of legislation in which an incremental approach might be better than an all-or-nothing mentality.

Likewise, policymakers must consider which providers should be included in course choice programs when writing legislation. Ideally, states would include a wide variety of course providers, including public school districts and the state’s colleges and universities as a starting point. They should also be open to colleges and universities from other states, particularly if they are more receptive to affordably serving high school students; course providers focused on career and technical education, many of which may already be on the state’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Eligible Training Provider List; and charter and private schools. Other options may include tutoring providers, providers of services for children with special needs, and, of great importance, an open-ended “other” category, which can allow each state’s department of education to vet other offerings that may benefit students even if they are less obvious or harder to circumscribe in legislation.

Another crucial question, as always, is funding. States should weigh whether to create a new appropriation or allow funding to follow students out of district allocations. In addition, they need to determine whether federal Covid-19 relief funds will be used and, if so, what will replace them when they disappear.

Finally, practical program design considerations apply here too. Accountability, both for use of funds and academic outcomes, is crucial. A pay-for-success model is one approach, but it may add more complexity than some states would like. Other safeguards will be needed to ensure there is a mechanism to remove persistently low-performing providers or those engaged in fraud. Likewise, if a program allows students to purchase educational materials and services on their own, there must be a way to prevent families from buying a big-ticket item such as a laptop and then dropping out of the program. Getting these questions right will often mean the difference between a bill that is drafted and one that becomes law.

While the Covid-19 pandemic has created new demand for course choice policies, much of the political calculus necessary to enact them remains the same as in the previous decade. Savvy public school advocates may prove to be strong allies in this effort because these policies supplement what is offered by traditional public schools and simultaneously reduce pressure on principals, superintendents, and school boards to accommodate every offering on parents’ wish lists.

On the other hand, progressive critics may see these policies as a gateway drug of sorts for traditional public school parents, who might turn to other forms of choice such as charters or vouchers after exposure to course choice. By the same token, supporters of these policies should look out for unexpected opposition from some school choice supporters wary of anything that might reduce demand for charters and vouchers by making it easier for some parents to make do at their assigned public school.

Course choice might be the perfect policy for 2022 for one more reason: It can offer tremendous benefits to the majority in the political middle. However, it will first have to overcome opposition from the fringes of both the left and right. Threading this needle in each state will depend on the expertise of state think tanks and legislative leaders. If the political challenges can be overcome and a source of long-term funding can be identified, states will have a unique opportunity to build a course choice program that can help overcome pandemic-related learning loss, better meet each child’s unique learning needs, and expand the coalition for educational choice, all at an extremely opportune time.

______________

Notes: