Pandemic highlights questions about cyber charter schools
The majority of educators and student seem to agree that in-person instruction is superior to cyber schooling. Yet for more than two decades Pennsylvania taxpayers have paid the same tuition rate for cyber charter schools as for brick and mortar cyber schools.
But local school districts have costs such as tax collection and building maintenance that are not factored in the funding formula. The result is cyber charter schools can use the surplus for noninstructional expenses such as television advertisements.
Whencharter schools were approved in Pennsylvania, it was on the crest of a “school choice” movement that was based on the unproven theory that educational outcomes would be better if parents had the opportunity to select the schools in which their children were enrolled. But the responsibilities for parents go beyond the original decision to choose a school.
As millions of parents will be learning during the next few months, the education of students by distance education requires continued communication with teachers and oversight of the children while they study.
Cyber charter schools have not lived up to expectations, in my opinion. On state assessments in the 2018-19 school year, cyber school students scored consistently lower academically than students from conventional public schools.
Charter schools are expensive to local school districts. Cyber charter schools were paid $606 million by school districts in 2019-20. The average tuition rate is $11,306 for the school term for nonspecial education students. For special education students the average yearly payment was more than $24,000 across the state.
Some charter schools advertise that education by charter schools is “free.” Although they are free to the parents of individual students, that payment is made by funds provided by the students’ neighbors through school taxes.
During the past months since schools closed down in March there has been a dramatic change in the school environment. Schools tried to salvage the rest of the spring school term through distance education, with mixed result. During the summer, school districts have been refining their programs of cyber instruction.
One positive result of the increased attention to cyber schooling is that school districts have become more sophisticated in the use of the internet for instruction.
Cyber charter schools have enjoyed more than 20 years of existence in Pennsylvania. They have become entrenched, with effective lobbyists to protect their interests.
But individual school districts and intermediate units are demonstrating that they can provide effective programs of cyber education and are in a position to do it more cost effectively than cyber charter schools. School districts are also experimenting with various kinds of hybrids, mixing in-person with remote learning.
Two bills are languishing in committee in the General Assembly which, if passed, would provide relief to local school districts. House Bill 526 and Senate Bill 34 would require parents to pay tuition for their children’s education in a cyber charter school if the school district of residence offers its own equivalent full-time charter instructional program. These bills have not even received consideration in their committees. They deserve an opportunity for discussion and decision.
If legislation does not provide relief, the funding formula determined in the Pennsylvania Department of Education should be revised to exclude items not necessary for cyber charter schools.
Over the past several months we have been told by experts that the elements of a school social environment, with caring teachers and interactions with peers, is necessary for sound social and emotional growth. Teachers, parents and community members have found the truth of the value of in-person education, and public schools will return to it as soon as it is safe to do so. School districts will also have the experience of testing various forms of hybrid schooling.
The Pennsylvania Constitution charges the General Assembly with the responsibility of providing a “thorough and efficient” system of public education for the children of the commonwealth. Because they lack the socialization that we find so valuable, cyber charter schools are not thorough. They are not efficient because the funding formula pays more than is necessary.
As a retired teacher, I would have to give the General Assembly and the Pennsylvania Department of Education failing grades for their poor oversight over cyber charter schools.
In my opinion, the present system of cyber charter schools is neither thorough nor efficient.