The Center Square first published this opinion piece.

Ohio’s higher education landscape is changing. Reforms tailored to accommodate that change should improve the status quo without sacrificing innovative tools that will help Ohio schools keep pace with student and workforce needs.

Enrollment at Ohio colleges and universities has dropped by double digits over the past decade. Reasons for that decline include falling birth rates, eroding confidence in higher education, and the rising popularity of workforce credentialing alternatives. For Ohio universities to thrive, they must better prepare students for real jobs and embrace new educational technologies that can help deliver quality instruction at an affordable price.

For their part, state policymakers must work to curb the rampant growth in administrative costs that have dramatically outpaced classroom expenses at public universities for years. Rising administrative costs contribute to the overall price of tuition and continue to fuel unsustainable student debt. Taxpayer subsidies can and should be better directed toward improving job prospects for graduates and investing in strategic ways to train students for a rapidly evolving labor market. That effort should include – not preclude – innovative web-based initiatives that can offer college-level courses where and when students need them.

Online program managers, or OPMs, are one such initiative. These largely private firms help colleges develop, market, and deliver online degree programs. When used well, OPMs can help institutions reach more students, especially nontraditional learners like working adults, parents, and rural residents through their accelerated technology platforms. With the right partnerships, OPMs can expand access to degrees in high-demand fields like healthcare, information technology, and advanced manufacturing – sectors critical to Ohio’s future.

To take full advantage of the potential benefits OPMs offer, policymakers must carefully craft clear, fair rules that guard against the dangers of the “free college” model that harmed students and doomed Eastern Gateway Community College without stifling the innovation that Ohio higher education needs to survive. Current proposals in House Bill 96 would permit OPM partnerships at private universities, but make it much harder for public institutions to pursue them. That imbalance is a fixable mistake.

Rules governing OPMs should apply equally to public and private schools. All colleges and universities in Ohio, for example, should be required to notify the chancellor of higher education before signing an agreement with an OPM, submit those contracts for compliance review, and ensure all OPM partnerships are declared publicly. Schools should retain the right to terminate any OPM relationship that does not align with their curriculum or mission, but Ohio should not grant the chancellor direct veto power over these partnerships, as currently proposed.

Ohio law should also clarify that OPM partnerships do not trigger an official state “fiscal watch” designation for participating schools unless an alarming increase in OPM use in a short period signals institutional distress. Without such statutory assurance and clarity, schools may be wary of unintended, adverse consequences of partnering with OPMs. But such protections and oversight should govern and encourage OPM use by public and private schools, not one or the other.

As the traditional higher education model shifts away from catering primarily to recent high-school graduates living full-time on campus, it must find ways to reduce administrative expenses while keeping pace with changing demographics, student and employer preferences, and new learning opportunities. Lawmakers and education policymakers must facilitate rather than hinder each of those objectives.

With proper, responsible oversight, OPM partnerships offer an innovative opportunity for Ohio’s higher-ed to stay ahead of the curve. The state would be smart take it.

Greg R. Lawson is a research fellow at The Buckeye Institute.