Times Chronicle & Public Spirit
Report: As costs skyrocket, Pa. must rein in cyber charter schools
Other states have put controls in place
Pennsylvania has more cyber charter school students than any other state in the nation, according to a recent report.
And during the pandemic, that population has “surged by 59 percent,” according to M.L. Wernecke, the author of the report, which is titled “The PA Disconnect in Cyber Charter Oversight and Funding.”
Wernecke is the director of the PA Charter Performance Center at Children First, formerly known as Pennsylvania Citizens for Children and Youth, and the report compared how Pennsylvania funds and oversees cyber charter schools to how that work is done in the 28 other states that allow them.
Wernecke said 99.7 percent of the last year’s charter school growth has occurred in cyber charter school enrollments as parents seek alternatives for scrambling public schools struggling to maintain online and in-person education options.
“Pennsylvania now has 12 times the number of cyber charter students as the state of Florida,” said state Rep. Joe Ciresi, D-146th Dist., who is the primary sponsor of a cyber charter reform bill now languishing in the House of Representatives in Harrisburg and who joined a press conference on Zoom outlining the report’s findings.
“Pennsylvania is the cyber charter capital of the nation,” according to Wernecke.
What the report’s comparison showed is that Pennsylvania’s 25-yearold law governing charter schools funds them in a “fairly unique” way, which is to base tuition on the expense-per-student in the sending school district, as opposed to what it actually costs the charter to educate that student, whether it’s a cyber school or a brick-and-mortar charter.
All but three other states that allow cybercharter schools not only set a statewide rate for tuition but also require significantly more oversight, Wernecke’s report concluded.
Charter school tuition “has doubled over the last five years” in Pennsylvania, putting the statewide cost to local districts at nearly $1 billion in the current school year. The Temple University Public Policy Lab projects charter school tuition will overtop $1.27 billion by 2025, Wernecke said.
That means the everrising tuition at Pennsylvania’s cyber schools is a windfall for cyber-charter schools and an everincreasing burden for local taxpayers, because “study after study has shown the cost of education of 20 to 30 percent lower in a virtual environment as opposed to an inperson environment, Wernecke said.
That’s why 11 other states set the statewide tuition rate for cyber charter schools significantly below the rate for brick-and-mortar cyber schools, the study found.
That rising tuition is not only increasing the taxpayer burden but is taking resources away from traditional public schools, said Wernecke.
“I hear from parents in the districts which are losing money and see what’s no longer available in their districts,” said Ciresi. “And you may be surprised to hear it, but Lower Merion also fits into this equation, so does Tredyffrin and Radnor. Every time we overpay to a cyber charter school, it’s another loss to a school district, whether it’s a school counselor, or a teacher,” Ciresi said.
“And I represent Pottstown, the fifth most underfunded district in the Commonwealth and reforming how we fund these schools would save those taxpayers millions of dollars a year, and people who still have the opportunity to attend charter schools,” he said.
“School districts are having to curtail programs, just to pay the cyber charter invoice, said Tim Shrom, director of research for the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials.
‘When we’re talking about school choice, let’s remember that the majority of families choose traditional public school,” said Shrom. “They should get to keep their school, not have it curtailed to overpay at another school.”
There is also the question according to the report, of what value taxpayers are getting for that high tuition.
Wernecke said, “all 14 cyber charters schools (in Pennsylvania) score below the state average” on the standardized tests used to measure school effectiveness. Across the country, in fact, less than half the 320 cyber charter schools where ratings are available are rated as “acceptable,” according to the National Education Policy Center.
The graduation rate for cyber charter schools is only 60 percent, said Wernecke.
Colin Miller, Senior Advisor at California Charter Schools Association, said in his state, not only are all charter schools required to be non-profit, they must follow all open records laws; they are subject to an annual audit and, unlike in Pennsylvania “they are included in the state’s school accountability system.”
Perhaps most significantly, “poor-performing schools will not be renewed under our system,” said Miller. “It’s really important that you have that level playing field in terms of accountability.”
While in the Texas legislature, now-Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, championed an accountability law that allows the state to “close down poor performing” cyber charter schools, Wernecke said
California also has “spending targets” and monitors what money is spent on — for example, not millions in advertising as happens often here in Pennsylvania — “so you can make sure public money is being invested in education, and not profiteering,” Miller said.
State Rep. Curt Sonney, R-4th Dist. is another Republican who, since 2005, has fought to bring accountability to cyber charter schools and, as the chairman of the House Education Committee, he’s in a good position to do it. Unfortunately, he said, his efforts have met a stone wall.
“Since 2010, we’ve advanced legislation out of the house, but we have yet to get anything close to the finish line,” he said. “It’s very enlightening to see what other states are doing. It’s nice to see there are places where public education is not so adversarial because it should not be,” said Sonney.
“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue,” agreed Ciresi. “This is a student-driven issue and this is a taxpayer issue.”
Bipartisanship may be the only way to make progress in Pennsylvania according to the report which, in addition to outlining problems in Pennsylvania’s oversight of cyber charter schools, also suggests solutions.
Perhaps chief among them is the formation of a bi-partisan commission on cyber charter reform, similar to the one that studied funding inequity and created the state’s partially used fair funding formula.
Another proposal is to find ways for school districts and cyber charter schools to collaborate. The sudden implementation of distance learning during the pandemic pushed traditional public schools and cyber charter schools closer together.
Shrom said he has seen hybrid models work well in a pilot project in Lancaster County.
“I’ve seen the positive impact of cyber charter schools and I’ve also seen the negative impact and it can help, if managed properly,” Shrom said.
The hybrid pilot “was most preferred by parents, was the most successful and was an engaging model for students” Shrom said. “Instead of a policy of animus, we should have a policy of collaboration.”
But instead, you have examples like cyber charter schools creating technology paid for by taxpayer dollars, but then it’s made proprietary and others can’t use it, he said.
Similarly, Sonney said when the pandemic hit, he invited many schools superintendents and officials to Harrisburg to see how cyber-charter schools do some of their best work, “but very few of them showed up.”
While oversight is needed, it’s important to remember, said state Rep. Jordan Harris, D-186th Dist., that “there are so many parents in my district in Philadelphia who are dissatisfied with the options being offered every day in our public schools.”
“The law needs to be updated and fixed because proper oversight of taxpayer money is good for everyone involved,” Harris said. “But for those parents who want choice, we have a responsibility to make sure all those options are high-quality options.”
It should not be presented as an “either-or” choice, said Shrom. “Most parents don’t want school choice. What they want is educational choices. There’s a big difference.”
This is at the heart of the reforms outlined in the Children First report, which endorses “Texasstyle reforms” including:
• Enhancing applicant approval standards; • Specifying the academic, operational, and financial performance expectations and standards for renewal, non-renewal, and revocation; • Mandating closure of schools with unacceptable performance for the three preceding years; • Creating a renewal process with clear expectations for schools; • Expanding the charter school cap to allow quality schools to grow.
“Children First is not anti-charter school or pro-charter school,” said LaTi Spence, a board member of the decade’s old advocacy organization. “We are all about the students and the children and we endeavor to push all stakeholders to work on solutions that meet the needs of our kids.”