Unfunded Mandates in Cyber School need a level playing field.

Honorable Representative Turzai,

I have some problems with your initiatives in the Pennsylvania state house on cyber education. Your position seems to be that educational monies must be cut from the state, and that cyber schools are the easiest target to drain the money from. My post is about why this is not a good idea. I appreciate the openness that you express at the bottom of this web page “to develop consensus with all parties”. I represent one teacher in one cyber charter school. I appreciate your invitation for feedback. In the spirit of “spurring on competition”, I am going to go through each portion of the changes that you have summarized and add questions and comments that express my concerns.

• Pension/Double dip.  Joe Emrick has introduced legislation (HB 618) to allow deductions for school district pension payments prior to calculating payments to cyber charter schools. This one change will save approximately $165 million for school districts over the next five years.

There is a duplication, but it is offset by transportation and facility reimbursements. We do not have transportation costs, but we are forced to pay for them. We have building, maintenance and rent costs but we still have to reimburse them.

1. Will this not spur the creation of unions in cyber charter schools that should be free from these structures in order to be a force for change?

My conclusion is that this is an unfunded mandate that robs the pensions of cyber school teachers.

• Mike Reese has introduced A new “Cyber Program” deduction (HB 759) to spur on competition between school districts and cyber charter schools.  School districts will be permitted to deduct 50 percent of the costs of any cyber program they offer to their own resident students.

1. Will this be done on a per student basis, or will the district be released to cut reimbursements by 50% because the school district has started a cyber school. 
2. In a true spirit of competition, shouldn’t the school districts only be allowed to deduct 50% from those cyber school students who they actually providing services to?
3. Should school districts be required to provide full time cyber school services?
4. Should this expense deduction be capped per school?

Cyber Charter schools were started to be laboratories of education because the existing school districts were failing. This created an adversarial relationship with the local school districts from the beginning. The intent of the original law was to produce positive change in education, and this adversarial relationship provided a motive for change. Is it fair to have the fox guard the hen house by the districts inflating their expenses to cut statewide cyber school funding? Why wouldn’t the districts be motivated to inflate their expenses to go back to the status quo with less motivation to include innovation in their schools?

Would this not reverse the positive changes that cyber education alternatives have already produced?

• Districts would be allowed to make additional deductions in calculating their payments to cyber charter schools; these deductions represent costs that occur in a brick-and-mortar setting, but not necessarily in a cyber setting. The proposed new deductions are:
• The “Extracurricular Activities” deduction will allow districts to deduct 50 percent of the costs they incur for extracurricular activities. This deduction will not change the availability of extracurricular activities to cyber charter students who choose to participate in their home school district’s activities.

•  How do we pay for our own extra-curricular activities like our student government organization?
• Will this be done on a per student basis?
• In a true spirit of competition, shouldn’t the school districts only be allowed to deduct 50% from those cyber school students who they are actually providing services to?

• Our school has two school nurses. How will we pay for them?
• Would it be fairer to charge a fee to students who use library or food services? These fees could be reimbursed to our students.

This is an unfunded mandate that robs health services from our cyber school schools.

·  Redefining the “Other Financing Uses” deduction to only debt service and fund transfers.

I do not understand what this means?

·  Direct Payment of Charter Schools. Recognizing the concerns of charter and cyber charter schools not being timely paid by school districts, the Commonwealth will provide their funding directly.

I support this.

·  Longer Charter Terms for Predictable Financing. The term of a charter will be lengthened from the current three years for an initial charter and five years for renewals, to five years for the initial charter and 10 years for renewals. Longer terms will allow charter schools to more easily secure predictable and consistent bank financing; the shorter terms have made private financing difficult for a number of charters in the state.

I support this.

Thank you for providing this open forum to build consensus. Does competition between the districts’ cyber schools and state wide cyber schools require a level playing field?

When funding is cut based upon the bias of one the competitors will that reflect educational innovation or comfort for the status quo?

Many of these cost cutting strategies amount to unfunded mandates aimed at cyber education. Unfunded mandates have long been a means of cutting school districts funding across the state. This has not produced better schools or educational innovation. Passing unfunded mandates onto cyber education is likely to result in stopping educational innovation, and even reversing the gains that we have made. Does it make sense to cut cyber education funding when post secondary education is currently ramping up these services because of the documented benefits?

Help us out and write a letter to support cyber schools. Click here to see a sample letter. Follow this link and then insert your zip code to find your representative. :) Thanks for your help!