Can the Texas Virtual Education Law Redefine Learning Options for Students?

“All partners must align their goals to a central, student-centric vision for virtual education quality, not just enrollment expansion. This means moving beyond siloed organizational objectives to a shared commitment to student outcomes.”

Joshua Childs, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of Texas at Austin

Texas is redefining what public education can look like in the digital age. Earlier this year, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 569 into law, creating the state’s first comprehensive framework for K–12 virtual and hybrid learning. The legislation replaces a patchwork of temporary policies with a unified system aimed at ensuring stability, quality, and accountability in online instruction. Authored by State Senator Paul Bettencourt, the law guarantees funding parity between virtual and in-person students and directs the Texas Education Agency to establish clear standards for course design and district oversight.

This marks a major policy shift. Virtual learning, once viewed as a stopgap during the pandemic, is now embedded in the state’s long-term education strategy. Lawmakers expect enrollment in online and hybrid programs to grow significantly over the next several years, potentially doubling by 2028. Proponents see the framework as a lifeline for students who need flexibility, such as foster youth, working teens, and those pursuing college credit, while critics warn that uneven access to devices, broadband, and trained teachers could widen existing gaps.

The law arrives at a moment when technological access and instructional quality vary widely across Texas districts. Whether it succeeds depends not only on infrastructure but also on how schools, educators, and state agencies coordinate to make virtual learning both equitable and effective.

To explore what that coordination will require, we spoke with Joshua Childs, associate professor of educational leadership and policy at The University of Texas at Austin, whose research examines inter-organizational collaboration and strategies to improve student engagement statewide.

Dr. Joshua Childs is an associate professor of educational leadership and policy at The University of Texas at Austin. His research examines the role of inter-organizational networks and cross-sector collaborations to address complex educational issues. He also investigates collaborative approaches involving organizations (local, state, and national) that have the potential to improve academic achievement and opportunities for students in urban and rural schools. This includes ways to improve student engagement and attendance in school, interscholastic athletics, and expanding educational opportunities through concentrated policy design and implementation.

Dr. Childs is a co-PI (principal investigator) of the Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance, a consortium of 30 states focused on broadening participation in computer science. A former Division I athlete, he graduated from Plano West High School (TX).

The success of Texas’ new virtual education framework depends on more than technology—it hinges on coordination among districts, state agencies, and private partners. According to Dr. Joshua Childs, associate professor of educational leadership and policy at The University of Texas at Austin, effective collaboration begins with a “shared vision and collective purpose.” All stakeholders, he explains, must align around a central, student-centered mission for virtual education quality rather than pursuing isolated institutional goals. “All partners must align their goals to a central, student-centric vision for virtual education quality, not just enrollment expansion,” Dr. Childs says. “This means moving beyond siloed organizational objectives to a shared commitment to student outcomes.”

Dr. Childs stresses that high-trust environments are essential for partners to share honest feedback and resources. He believes the Texas Education Agency should act not only as a regulator but also as a facilitator, creating the conditions for innovation while maintaining quality standards. “TEA and other state agencies should move from a purely regulatory role to a supportive and facilitative one,” he notes, “ensuring that districts and technology providers feel empowered to innovate within quality guidelines.”

Equally critical, Dr. Childs says, is the need for a common language and governance structure that clearly defines decision-making authority. Without it, technology integration can easily stall or fragment. He also identifies sustainable resource alignment as a major factor in determining whether schools can meet the law’s goals, emphasizing that “schools and districts will need financial and human capital resources to implement the state’s vision.”

Yet gaps remain. Dr. Childs warns of the risk of a “patchwork of district-vendor partnerships where quality control could be undermined.” He also points to the lack of an integrated data infrastructure that could limit the state’s ability to monitor performance and conduct evidence-based interventions.

Above all, he argues, the long-term success of virtual learning rests on the preparedness of educators and leaders. Sustained funding for professional development, he says, will determine whether Texas’ virtual education system becomes an engine of equity—or another layer of division.

While Senate Bill 569 outlines a statewide vision, its impact will depend on whether virtual learning can reach students in every community. Access to reliable technology remains uneven across Texas, where broadband infrastructure varies sharply between urban centers and rural areas. Dr. Childs points out that without strong state support, these disparities could deepen. “The state should prioritize the expansion of affordable, high-speed broadband access in all rural and urban areas,” he says.

For Dr. Childs, the solution goes beyond connectivity. He argues that equitable virtual education also depends on ensuring that students, families, and teachers have the tools and training to participate fully. “Funding for one-to-one device programs with professional development for educators, students, and families or caregivers is essential,” he notes. He also recommends expanding access to mobile hotspots and creating community-based Wi-Fi hubs, especially in regions where home internet remains unreliable.

These recommendations echo long-standing challenges across Texas, where digital access has historically mirrored socioeconomic divides. Students in wealthier districts tend to have better connectivity and more teacher support, while those in lower-income or geographically isolated communities face limited resources and less consistent instruction. As virtual learning becomes a permanent option, those structural gaps risk translating into new educational inequities.

Dr. Childs emphasizes that virtual learning must be designed with underserved and transient populations in mind, from migrant students to foster youth. Targeted investments, he says, are critical to ensure that online programs do not replicate existing barriers. Equity, in his view, is not simply about providing the same resources statewide but about meeting each community’s distinct needs. Whether Texas’ virtual education system fulfills its promise will depend on how well the state balances technological infrastructure with the human supports that make learning accessible for all.

As Texas expands its virtual and hybrid programs, traditional markers of attendance and participation no longer capture what it means for a student to be truly engaged. Dr. Childs argues that digital learning demands a broader understanding of how students interact, learn, and progress.

“Implement an early warning system that uses a variety of data points to identify disengaged students quickly,” he says. “These measures should include lack of submitted assignments, low assessment scores, minimal interaction with the teacher, and failure to meet weekly learning milestones, not just log-in frequency.”

This approach reframes accountability from a question of compliance to one of insight. Rather than tracking whether a student signs in, educators could monitor behavioral and performance indicators that reveal emerging problems before they lead to withdrawal or failure. Such systems, Dr. Childs notes, allow teachers and administrators to intervene earlier and more effectively, strengthening retention and achievement.

Texas’ new law leaves room for districts to interpret how accountability metrics evolve, which presents both opportunity and risk. Local flexibility can encourage innovation, but inconsistent implementation could create uneven standards across the state. Districts with stronger data systems may adapt quickly, while those with limited technical capacity could fall behind. Building a unified reporting structure, integrated with the Texas Education Agency’s oversight, would help ensure that engagement metrics remain both fair and actionable.

Dr. Childs also cautions that the success of these accountability systems depends on how well teachers are prepared to use them. Virtual instruction, he explains, requires educators to master new tools, analyze digital learning data, and maintain personal connections through screens. That shift increases workload and demands specialized training.

“The success of virtual learning rests on the skills and preparation of educators and leaders,” Dr. Childs says. For Texas, redefining engagement is not only about new metrics—it is about supporting the professionals tasked with making those metrics meaningful.

With a goal to double virtual enrollments by 2028, Texas faces the challenge of translating growth targets into measurable learning gains. Dr. Childs believes that clear standards and sustained investment in teacher capacity must guide expansion.

“Require all virtual courses offered for credit to be certified against rigorous quality standards before being offered to students,” he says. He suggests the state adopt or adapt national rubrics such as Quality Matters to ensure that course design aligns with Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), promotes engagement, and remains accessible for all learners.

Dr. Childs also recommends establishing a Texas Virtual Educator Endorsement, which would certify teachers trained in online instructional design, facilitation, and data-driven personalization. He argues that incentives—such as stipends or salary bonuses—could help attract and retain experienced educators to virtual programs, particularly those serving high-need populations.

“Mandate that virtual education professional development be ongoing, job-embedded, and blended,” he adds, “involving a mix of online modules, collaborative coaching, and in-person summits.”

Sustainability, in Dr. Childs’ view, depends on recognizing the human side of digital schooling. “Developing and facilitating a high-quality virtual course is often more labor-intensive than teaching a traditional class,” he explains. Policies must address this workload with appropriate staffing and compensation.

As Texas builds its digital education future, its framework offers the structure for innovation—but structure alone will not guarantee success. Its long-term strength will rest on whether quality, equity, and human connection remain central to how the state defines virtual learning.