PA Cyber School Reform Fails

Pa. lawmakers caving on cyber charter reform | Guest column

By Express-Times guest columnist By Mark Spengler Updated on July 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM Posted on July 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM

Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene Depasquale recently reminded the public that we have the worst charter school system in the country. Easily the worst part of the Pennsylvania charter school embarrassment has to do with cyber charter schools, which have shown deplorable results in terms of graduation and student performance and have wasted a ton of taxpayer money. Here are some of the most recent numbers:

Average graduation rates for 2015-16:

·         Pennsylvania public schools, 86.1 percent.

·         Pennsylvania cyber charter schools, 47.7 percent.

Average school performance profile results, 2015-16 (70 is considered passing)"

·         Public schools, 70.3 percent.

·         Cyber charter schools, 50.9 percent (nine out of 14 scored below 50).

Total local Pennsylvania taxpayer money spent on cyber charter tuition, 2013-15:

·         $1.2 billion

Perhaps the saddest part of our cyber charter system is the funding method. Cyber charters are funded at the same per diem rate as bricks-and-mortar charter schools. This of course makes no sense, because cybers do not have anywhere near the same level of expenses as bricks and mortar schools. Going all the way back to 2012, it was reported by the Auditor General's office that Pennsylvania  taxpayers were being overcharged $365 million a year. Clearly, much of this has to do with overspending for cyber charters.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/pa_cyber_charter_schools_guest.html#incart_2box_opinion

School Performance Profile Scores for PA Cyber Charters 2013 - 2016

Source: PA Department of Education website          

A score of 70 is considered passing

Total cyber charter tuition paid by PA taxpayers from 500 school districts for 2013, 2014 and 2015 was over $1.2 billion; $393.5 million, $398.8 million and $436.1 million respectively. 

Not one of Pennsylvania’s cyber charters has achieved a passing SPP score of 70 in any of the four years that the SPP has been in effect.

School Name	2013	2014	2015	2016
21st Century CS	66.5	66.0	69.2	62.2
Achievement House CS	39.7	37.5	44.8	54.5
ACT Academy Cyber CS	30.6	28.9	36.1	40.7
Agora Cyber CS	48.3	42.4	46.4	37.6
ASPIRA Bilingual CS	29.0	39.0	38.4	41.9
Central PA Digital Learning Fdn CS	31.7	48.8	39.3	46.7
Commonwealth Connections Academy CS	54.6	52.2	48.8	47.5
Education Plus Academy Cyber CS	59.0	50.0		67.9
Esperanza Cyber CS	32.7	47.7	31.7	50.7
PA Cyber CS	59.4	55.5	65.3	51.0
PA Distance Learning CS	54.7	50.9	49.2	53.9
PA Leadership CS	64.7	59.3	54.7	57.5
PA Virtual CS	67.9	63.4	64.6	49.7
Solomon CS	36.9
Susq-Cyber CS	46.4	42.4	45.5	49.3

Edward Albert, Ed.D

Executive Director 

Pennsylvania Association for Rural and Small Schools

113 Stone Hedge Court

Lebanon, Pa 17042

717 587 3521

Bill Proposes Changes to PA School Code

            Changes to the school code are part of the PA budget process. These bills will be considered once the Assembly and governor reach an agreement on revenues to support the $32B in spending. Issues being addressed include: “lunch shaming,” teacher furloughs for economic reasons, delay of the Keystone exam, more dollars for EITC, school board training, opioid instruction, develop of PA plan to meet ESSA guidelines, funds for school construction, and changes in superintendents’ contracts.

A new term has entered the educational lexicon “lunch shaming.” The bill proposes that all students regardless of ability to pay eat the advertised menu. Supposedly it is shameful to deny a product when one who has the ability to pay, does not pay. All students eat. Even if they don’t have money, schools provide a bag lunch minimum. Many schools even allow a deficit up to a certain dollar amount. No one goes hungry. However, if you want the hot lunch, you have to pay. It is a novel concept. District cafeterias cannot operate as if they are serving Popeye’s buddy, Wimpy. There is not payment on Tuesday for a burger today! School personnel call families, provide notice of direct certification for free and reduced meals, email families, and send letters home on child accounts. Child accounts may also be monitored over secure student information systems. Parents can log in and check account levels, spending levels, and add money to the account. Who is going to pay the shortfall, the state? By the way, I want to introduce a new term to the economic lexicon, “Cadillac shaming.” I will be at my nearest Cadillac dealership, ready to pick up my new ride, and pay what I want, when I want.

Currently schools can only reduce force with a drop in population or a change in programs. Economic furloughs are currently forbidden. Schools have and do lay off teachers for economic reasons. Quite simply, school districts currently “lie.” Under the guise of change in programs or drop in populations, furloughs are approved. The state has rubber stamped these requests knowing full well that the motivations for furloughs were economic. The bill proposes that the least effective teachers get furloughed first, regardless of seniority. If the state wants furloughs of the least effective teachers first, as measured by the PDE form 82-1, then schools will need protection from suit. I guarantee that the first furlough that does not follow seniority guidelines will face suit in Commonwealth court. In addition schools will need protection against federal suit. Schools could face age, race, or gender discrimination suits if the person furloughed falls into a protected class.

The bill also proposes ending the controversial Keystone Exam requirement for graduation. Just because the Keystone Exams are “going away” as a graduation requirement, doesn’t mean they are going away. School districts still need to comply with ESSA. We still have to have a “test” for accountability. I support multiple pathways to demonstrate proficiency (SAT/ACT tests, portfolio of experience, NOCTI/NIMS) and therefore qualify a student for graduation.

The proposed legislation seeks to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit program. EITC is a win-win for business and schools.  EITC gives business an opportunity to say where their tax money goes. In addition it builds partnerships between business and schools.

School Board training is an excellent idea. The bill calls for 4 hours of initial training and then 2 hours of training following each re-election. Just because you went to school doesn’t mean you are qualified to sit on the board of a multimillion dollar operation. Look at the PSBA web site. Great references on what a school board member should or should not do. If approved, PDE should partner with PSBA. Don’t waste money and reinvent the wheel.

The bill calls for a mandate on opioid education. Yes, opioid addiction is a problem and yes the bill is another unfunded mandate. Opioid education as well as education on a healthy lifestyle that refrains from the abuse of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol does need to be part of an on-going wellness curriculum within schools. Before any mandate, has PDE surveyed the 500 districts in PA and see when, where, and how opioid abuse is being addressed? Each district and the municipality served is different.  A one-size fit all mandate may not be relevant. Schools need flexibility. Any mandate needs to be supported with funding, or bag it.

The state is looking to create a political committee to create/advance the Commonwealth’s plan as it relates to ESSA. In addition to the politicians, what do the stakeholders have to say about the plan? Incorporate superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents. The more voices involved, the better the product.

Planned construction projects supported by state funding are dead. The state plans on continuing this moratorium. School buildings will continue to age. This is passing the buck to future tax payers at the expense of the educational experience of students. The state needs to pay what they currently owe on approved projects and develop a plan to move forward. How will the state and districts address the physical plant needs of the 21^st century? If the old system is bagged, what is the new system?

Finally, the legislature is looking to change the notification boards of education must give superintendents regarding renewal.  The law may reduce the timeframe for renewal from 150 to 90 days, but individual superintendents and schools should be allowed to negotiate a longer timeframe. The law can establish a minimum, but allow local decisions to determine if they want 150 or even 180 days. These jobs are not glorious and there is an ever shrinking pool of candidates.

Change is the only constant. I commend the legislature for tackling complex issues. However, if we can learn anything from the dysfunction in Washington, proposed solutions should not exacerbate the current problems. Our system of public education is imperfect.  Public educators across the state are responsible for approximately 1.6 million students. We will gladly partner with any stakeholder who wants to make changes to the system of PUBLIC education in Pennsylvania. These changes should result in greater student achievement, a greater educational experience, and a more cost efficient process. Good luck to all engaged in this conversation!