My K-12 journey was unconventional. I was home schooled for part of it. Attended a virtual public school for part of it. And went to a traditional public school for another part of it. So I’m more predisposed than most to readily embrace the idea that we need a diversity of school options to best fit families’ needs.

I also think it’s a strength of our state that families in many different locations can access multiple types of public schools (whether that be traditional, charter, or virtual). And I’m supportive of the ongoing moves in the Indiana legislature to fund charter schools more in alignment with traditional public schools after they’ve faced a funding deficit since their inception in the state some 25 years ago.

So what was I to make of the legislature’s simultaneous push to drastically increase funding for virtual schools across the state? Do virtual schools deserve funding parity too? Are they a type of public school that fits into the same schematic as charter schools when considering the options available to parents and how we ought to fund them?

Virtual Schools in Indiana Have a Not-So-Great Track Record

Virtual schools do not have a strong academic track record in Indiana. We’ve seen a mixture of both traditional public schools partnering with for-profit operators to provide a virtual school option and independent charter schools that operate purely as virtual schools. Neither way, on the whole, has done right by kids. In fact, one virtual school network faces ongoing litigation for defrauding the Indiana Department of Education out of millions of dollars after they inflated enrollment numbers. It’s the type of scandal that ought to bring increased scrutiny to the entire sector.

Suffice to say, virtual schools are not a resounding success from my perspective. Still, I and many others think they have a role to play in a diverse education ecosystem. I have no problem with their existence, even if I think we should clearly provide stronger oversight at the state level.

But I also won’t overlook their academic failings. Simply put, virtual schools have never proven themselves to work at scale. We didn’t need a whole pandemic to prove that (research was clear well before the pandemic made virtual school guinea pigs of everyone) but any doubters about their efficacy overall are being intellectually naive. Yet somehow, the Indiana Legislature is poised to increase funding for these schools.

And when I think about whether that’s a good thing (or perhaps a moral thing or a just thing), I keep circling back to a statement in a recent Chalkbeat piece from a virtual school administrator. They said, “We believe all public school students should be funded equitably. Indiana’s school funding policies should not tell thousands of families that their children are worth only 85% of what other public school students are worth.” [Note, I believe that administrator actually means “equally” not “equitably,” given the content of the second sentence, a distinction I’ll get to in a moment.]

Now, it’s hard to take the social justice argument seriously from someone whose organization stands to make drastically increased profits should this legislation pass. But the argument is wrestling with for a moment because it’s exactly the kind of statement you see from charter school advocates (and something I gladly cosign in the context of physical charter schools).

Should We Fund Virtual and Physical Schools Differently?

For me, here’s what it comes down to: Are there serious enough differences between physical public schools and virtual public schools that it is actually “equitable” (not equal) to fund them at different rates?

[A small aside on equitable vs. equal. Equal funding is not really my goal in education. Equitable really is the right word here. Schools should receive the funding they need to provide an excellent education. The state already acknowledges this to a degree in the way it provides funding boosts for schools with large populations of low-income students through what it calls “complexity funding.”]

I think it’s pretty obvious to point out that the educational experience is inherently less expensive when school is conducted virtually compared to when it’s conducted in person. What each type of school needs to provide a baseline set of services and experiences for students is vastly different. I have no problem with that showing up in different funding amounts, even though all students concerned are attending public schools.

I can already hear one section of doubters raising an objection. If that’s the case, then why do physical charter schools need more equal funding compared to traditional public schools? (After all, I support the legislature’s push to increase charter school funding to bring it more in alignment with how traditional public schools are funded.) Aren’t the differences between traditional public schools and charter schools just as meaningful as the differences between physical schools and virtual schools? I could spend a lot of time arguing my case but perhaps the best thing I can think of is just to ask: have you experienced in-person vs. virtual schooling? If you haven’t, go ask someone who has. These experiences are not the same and do not demand the same funding to function.

Should families have the option to send their kids to a virtual school? Yes. Should they expect their virtual school to be funded the same as a physical school? That’s an easy no for me.

At the risk of entering what I see as much more subjective and fraught territory, there’s also a question for me of whether or not virtual schools deserve it (setting aside the fact they do not provide an equivalently expensive form of education). After all, virtual schooling in the 21^st century is quite the experiment seeing as how it flies in the face of how students learned for basically the past few thousand years. To increase funding for such an experiment, you would expect years of resounding success and innovation.

Instead, we have years of outcomes showing virtual schools have a net negative academic impact on students. Of course, there are students for whom virtual schooling is a game changer. I’ve no doubt in the absence of virtual schools there are students whose lives would be irrevocably damaged. That’s why I’m happy for this option to stick around.

But they are the outliers, not the norm. The Indiana DOE’s guiding motto around education these past years has been “expanding what works.” If the legislature is paying attention to what works, they won’t expand funding for virtual schools.