A letter from Dr. Hanak,

Dear Joel,

I appreciate your effort to treat the charter school / traditional school debate fairly on Sunday April 7.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-08/business/38348740_1_traditional-public-school-cyber-schools-charter-school

May I offer some perspectives you may not know?

I am the founder and CEO of PA Leadership Charter School, one of 15 PA Cyber Charter Schools.  We started in 2004 and have grown to over 2,400 students state wide.

You stated in your article:

"Pennsylvania's revised method of evaluating charter schools reported that only 28 percent of the more traditional charter schools and none of the state's Cyber Schools (another outsource) met the standards for "adequate yearly progress... Unfortunately, we have no way of determining whether this massive educational experiment is succeeding."

Several observations:

1. Charter schools in Philadelphia are performing better than their counterparts in the traditional public school arena.

• 9 public charter schools have made AYP every year since their inception.
• 54% of public charter schools in Philadelphia County made AYP in 2012
  
• 13% of traditional public schools in Philadelphia County made AYP in 2012
• 29 public charter schools are classified as either Making Progress or School Improvement

2. Cyber Charter Schools are evaluated unfairly.  They are evaluated as individual schools and as Local Educational Agencies (LEA's).  This is the equivalent of a school district.  If a school district has one school that makes AYP, the entire school district may be classified as making AYP.  Not so with a Cyber Charter School.  Cybers must make AYP in all grade levels and all categories.
3. Our cyber charter school (palcs.org) has made AYP in 9 out of 10 categories each year since the inception of the school.  Yet, we are not given a 90% success rate in the press.  Rather we are given the equivalent rate of 12.5% because we made all categories in only one of 8 years of testing.  Cyber Charter Schools have a tough time making AYP because our large size gives us 40 students in numerous categories (28 this last year) including: low income, minorities, English as a Second Language, Special Education, etc."
4. With our students that stay with us for more than three years, we have seen dramatic successes - far exceeding the AYP standards. 
5. We have started, and currently run seven live centers where students come to a local location to connect with their teachers via the Internet.  In these centers, we see great success.  The Philadelphia Tribune reported on one of our Philadelphia Centers that boasted a 100% graduation rate.  http://www.palcs.org/2013/03/charter-school-boosts-full-graduation-rate-philadelphia-tribune/. These centers strain the school's budget, however.  We are experimenting with several different models financially to determine if we can expand this concept.
6. All charter schools begin with at least 30% less in funding than the home school district.  Yet, all charter schools are held to the same AYP standards.
7. There are currently 15 cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania.  Several were started and are run by school districts.  Several are totally independent.  Only two are run by outside management companies (Commonwealth Connections and Agora).  The rest are not as you say "another outsource." 
8. Parents are evaluating charter schools and are moving to charters in record numbers.  For every two students in charter schools, there is one student on the waiting list.
 Charter Facts:

• 105,056 - The number of students enrolled in public charter schools across Pennsylvania representing 6% of the entire K-12 student population.

• 44,000 - The number of children in Pennsylvania who are currently on waiting lists to attend charter schools

• 25% - The percentage of students in Philadelphia School District that attend public charter schools.

Currently, there is an effort in Harrisburg to cut the funding for Cyber Charter Schools as much as 30%, making these schools the least funded schools in the state.  All cyber charter schools are asking is to be treated equally with all other public schools.  Then, we would not mind being compared to our traditional brick and mortar counterparts.

I hope that you find this information helpful.  If I can be of further help to you, please call.

Sincerely,

Jim Hanak, CEO, PA Leadership Charter School

610-399-9876 cell

Dr. James Hanak, CEO

PA Leadership Charter School
1332 Enterprise Drive
West Chester, PA  19380

Phone: 610-701-3333

Fax: 610-701-3393
www.palcs.org

Summary of our China visit!

Here is a summary of my experience...

It has been two days since we have arrived back home from China. I write this post in the fog of some jet lag. Our experience with our hosts in China was wonderful. Hebei International School provided us with experiences that my students and I will cherish for a life time. When we first arrived all of us were struck by a country that is rapidly changing. There are cranes every where that add dust to an already dusty environment. We arrived in a new air port and took a bullet train to a brand new station with 32 platforms. China is a very forward planning country to meet the needs of 1.4 billion people. This is almost 5 times the size of the United States. One of the highlights for me was to visit the planning pavilion where we were able to see the city plan for the city of Shijiazhuang.

The people of China are what continually draws me back to this culture. They are both kind and hospitable. My students and I felt like movie stars. We were constantly eating out and asked for photo opportunities. If any of my students had a low self esteem I think a healthy dose of China for two weeks is likely to cure them. In addition, we all have probably gained a little weight from the amazing food. Our group responded well to this hospitality. I think this is the best group of students I have taken on an international trip. Everywhere I went I received compliments about them. In short, our host families and the school administration overwhelmed us with warmth and generosity. We have seen the great wall and experienced the great hearts of these people. We have made friendships that will last a life time. :) Our two schools will continue to work together to help our students achieve their highest potential. I am reminded of the song that we learned in music class one day on our trip. "Come together, put your hand in mine, you and me from one world, we are family." xin lian xin  永遠一家人。

You can read more about our Chinese Experience on our BLOG. Please check it out and make a comment. There is a translator built into this web site for the benefit of our Mandarin pen pals.

PALCS needs you to call PCN today!

Student Senators and parents!

PALCS needs our help. Tomorrow at 7 PM the minority chairman of the education committee is holding a call in program on his bill HB 934. Please call in and let me know that you are planning to do this. I will be listening. We need at least 3 or 4 of you to volunteer, but the more the merrier.

When you call in be prepared to tell your personal story. How has Cyber School helped you specifically? Many students talk about bullying, flexibility or just an out dated educational model that does not fit your learning needs.

Representative James Roebuck is the Democratic Committee Chairman of the house education committee. This powerful committee chooses which education bills will come to the floor for a vote. Roebuck has made the case that educational cuts can be balanced because charter schools are over funded. His plan is to cut charter school funding by $365,000,000 because he believes that they are overfunded. He makes a case for a uniform funding plan. This uniform plan would cut charter school funding by about 40%. This plan does not make sense because it contradicts the local control of educational funding. This is the way all other schools are funded. The inequality of the measure does not seem to bother him. Why should charter school students receive less for their education than any other students in the commonwealth? He wants to cut charter school funding because he sees charter schools as vulnerable. He does not think that the students and parents of these schools will care enough to fight for a cut in their funding. In addition we already receive 30% less than other schools because we do not receive transportation costs or costs for extracurricular activities.

As you know we have a successful student government at our school. This organization flourishes despite these funding cuts. Why should we reform Charter schools in a way that stifles innovation when our educational system is in dire need of it? If these cuts are passed there will be less creativity, like student government and just teaching to the achievement test. These cuts would require a correspondence model that ignores the collaboration and innovation of our unique educational platforms.

Summary: Comprehensive charter reform legislation that would create or require the following:

·                                      Create a funding commission that is not directed to look at equitable funding for all students, but rather to quantify how much money districts are paying for students in charter schools and how that impacts the districts.

·                                      Defines quality on the single criteria of AYP performance and requires charters to close if they do not meet AYP for three consecutive years.

·                                      Adds additional deductions that districts can take on the PDE Form 363 before paying charters.

·                                      Requires limitations on fund balances without addressing the issue that 70% of charter fund balances are required because districts refuse to pay charter    schools.

·                                      Adds additional reporting and compliance requirements to a point where they would be almost double those required of school districts.

HB 934

Please call into PCN tomorrow!

Representative James Roebuck recently introduced HB 934.  This bill would have devastating effects to both cyber charter and brick and mortar charter schools.  Tomorrow, PCPCS President Lawrence Jones, Jr. and Rep. Roebuck will appear on the PCN program "Call In" at 7:00 pm to debate Rep. Roebuck's legislation.

Please tune in to watch and also call 1-877-726-5001 with questions and comments!

Cyber Charter School Reform

 Dan Truitt has introduced two new bills to reform cyber charter Schools that make sense. HB's 970 and 971. While they would eliminate the double dipping problem in cyber school pensions, they would not cripple the funding of these schools by dictating that their funding will be reduced by local school districts. Instead the cyber schools will demonstrate increased accountability by reporting duplications of funding on a standard reporting form. This form is PDE-363. It will hold cyber schools accountable, and still allow Pennsylvania to lead the nation in  innovation in online education. The opposing bills, HB, 759, 618 and 934 will strip innovation from reform by crippling smaller state wide cyber schools which will allow larger cyber schools to be the only innovators in this type of education reform. Which is better less innovation, or more innovation? I support Dan Truitt's initiative to reform cyber education in a sensible way that reforms funding without stripping innovation or choice. Please contact representatives, Emrick, Reese, Roebuck and their co-sponsors to tell them that we need cyber charter education reform that does not strip innovation or choice from education.  I attended a hearing recently in Harrisburg, and I appreciate how Representative Truitt spoke up for sensible charter school reform. The following summary was given to me by one of my student senators, Matthew Meyerson, in our student government organization. PA Leadership Charter School is one of the schools that would be most effected by the opposing reform bills. As far as I know we are the only cyber charter school that has a virtual student government. Without students like Matthew you would not see the summary below. Without school like Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School there would not be this kind of extra-curricular activity. Matthew asked that I take his summary and get the word out. I am happy to oblige him. Does it make sense to punish smaller cyber schools by giving them the least amount of money to innovate? I am writing this BLOG with my own personal opinions on this subject. I do not represent my school or Representative Truitt. Here is Matthews summary of Mr. Truitt's bill. 

Here are the high lights of house bill #970

The first bill will be the primary vehicle to fix all of the inequities that are built into the PDE-363 and our current charter school funding formula. This bill will make the following changes:

1 – Eliminate the pension reimbursement paid by the state to the charter schools.
2A – Eliminate the lease reimbursement paid by the state to the charter schools.
2B – Delete the category 4000 (facilities) deduction from the PDE-363.
2C – Delete the category 5000 (financing) deduction from the PDE-363.
3A – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for money paid to charter schools for basic education only.
3B – Require districts to SUBTRACT charter school students from their “Average Daily Membership” (ADM) on the PDE-363.
4A – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for a district’s own cyber programs.
4B – Require districts to SUBTRACT students in their cyber programs from their ADM on the PDE-363.
5A – Allow school districts to deduct ALL pre-K expenses as opposed to just the federal portion.
5B – Require districts to SUBTRACT all pre-K students from their ADM on the PDE-363.
6A – Establish the definition of a “learning center” which is essentially a brick and mortar facility that cyber-charter schools use to enhance the education of cyber school students.
6B – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for 30% of category 4000 and category 5000 expenses.This deduction would apply only to payments to cyber-charter schools without learning centers.
6C – ADD a deduction to the PDE-363 for 15% of category 4000 expenses and category 5000 expenses.This deduction would apply only to payments to cyber-charter schools with learning centers.
7 – Require districts to provide transportation for students who attend cyber-charter schools with learning centers.
8 – Prohibit school districts from charging charter schools, including cyber charter schools, for transporting special education students to an IU unit or other facility away from the charter school campus.

This summary is from the Pennsylvania School Boards Web Site

HB 971 includes a direct pay provision, requiring PDE to make deductions from school district subsidies as payments to charter and cyber charter schools instead of allowing the school districts to make the payments directly.  A charter or cyber charter school could decide to have the school district, and not PDE, make the payments.  The bill also caps charter and cyber charter school fund balances at the same limits that apply to school districts.  

The Cybers and the Charters should be Friends.

I attended the Cyber Hearing today in Harrisburg on House Bill 618 (sponsored by Rep. Emrick) and House Bill 759 (sponsored by Rep. Reese).
It was a good experience. The caucus room was filled with cyber school teachers, administrators, parents and students. The capitol rotunda was filled with students, parents, and teachers. They simulcast the meeting on monitors in the rotunda, so cheers of affirmation could be heard in the caucus room from the cavernous rotunda to emphasize our points. :)

First up was Representative Joe Emrick. I was impressed with the first line of his introduction. He said that he was an athlete, believed in "establishing a level playing field," and thought that his bill accomplished this. This caused me to wonder if he had read my BLOG post the night before and borrowed from my words. I apologize to Representative Joe Emrick for misunderstanding this issue in my former BLOG post. Former Auditor General Wagner identified that these funds were in essence paid twice. However, the double dip is more like one and a half times the cost of pensions, instead of twice the amount. This is because of the reimbursements that cyber charters are required to make to schools for facilities and transportation. Sometimes it is not until after legislation is passed that we realize that it is a mistake. Step into my time capsule, and I will explain why this bill is a bad idea. Cyber Charter Schools are already paying their employees less than their brick and mortar counter parts. These lower salaries and even larger cuts will lead to even further cuts in pensions. The end result of this could mean a dis-satisfied faculty that is more likely to seek a union. If a charter school has a union, will it likely be less innovative? If our purpose is innovation and even "a model," then how do we do this with the change-resisting agent of a teacher’s union in education?

Mike Reese gave his presentation next. I am certain that both Mr. Reese and Emrick are sincere in their intentions to reform charter schools. I respectfully suggest that they are sincerely wrong. Representative Dan Truitt did a masterful job of asking questions that got to the root of the issue. “Are cyber charter school students less important than the other students in The Commonwealth”? The Reese bill would cut funding from cyber charter schools by permitting the school districts to determine a formula which will cut up to 50 percent of the costs of any cyber program they offer to their own resident students. The problem with this cost cutting tactic is that it is a classic fox watching the hen house scenario. The tension in the room today testifies of this reality. Dan Tuitt offered two bills that were as Mr. Roebuck said “not discussable in this hearing.” They are HB 970 and 971. They cut cyber charter funding by requiring cyber schools to add line items to the expense report balance sheet that they submit annually. This seems like a more practical solution and also encourages innovation by cutting expenses in a way where these “laboratories of innovation” can cut expenses and still maximize cyber learning.

The school board association spoke in support of the two bills. They perceive themselves as schools of the last resort. They made a valid point that they are unfairly required to incrementally reduce expenses by the amount that their revenues are reduced by cyber charter and charter school reimbursement. It is here that I feel we missed an opportunity today. It seems to me that one of the by products of this hearing is it separated the cyber school movement from the charter school movement. Both types of schools have always supported each other in the fight for education reform. We should emphasize our solidarity with one another, which we successfully did; however, we could have better expressed our brotherhood with our brick and mortar charter schools. I agreed with the business manager of Spring Grove School District when he made the point above. It is not fair for administrators to have an incremental drain in revenues when they have no accompanying cut in expenses. I would also make the point that if this proposed legislation is passed, then the smaller cyber charter schools providing different innovative practices could be bankrupted more easily than the larger cyber schools. Is the goal of charter school reform to cut expenses at the price of cutting innovation in education?

Senator Jeff Piccola and Joanne Barnett did a brilliant job giving testimony on behalf of cyber charter schools. The only thing I would have changed may have been the importance of linking our interests with the charter schools that we became a force of change with in 1997. An unfortunate by product of these hearings could be to divide and conquer our mutual interests. This is the reason for the BLOG title. "The cyber and the charters should be friends." In our fight for education reform, we should not forget our roots.

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!

2013 Chinese Visit to PA Leadership Charter School PALCS

This past week eight students and five teachers visited our school from The Hebei International School two hours south of Beijing in the Peoples Republic of China. During their stay our guests took part in a whorl-wind of activities. This trip was short, but extremely sweet. Their visit was part of a three legged trip to Cleveland, Ohio, our school, and the San Francisco Area Community College.

On day one I picked up our guests from JFK and ferried them over to the AIC parking lot to meet their host families. Our host families did an amazing job of welcoming these travel weary guests with Pennsylvania hospitality. The next day, President’s Day, our 13 guests and 14 PALCS students and parents joined together to tour New York City. We visited, The Today Show, Rockefeller Center, The South Street Seaport Complex, Central Park, 5^th Avenue, Times Square, NYU, and the 9-11 memorial site. On Tuesday we visited West Chester University. Our Students audited 3 classes and met 5 University professors who are interested in developing a deeper relationship with PALCS and our sister school in Hebei, China. On Wednesday our students shadowed students at the Advanced Ideas Center for the day. At days end we did some team building activities, had an online English Class, and interacted in a ping pong tournament between the Americans and Chinese. The Chinese won this time, but we all enjoyed the spirit of cooperation over competition with our Asian friends. On Thursday our visitors participated in an awards ceremony with Dr. Hanak. We were able to honor each of the delegation with a certificate of participation. We even gave the Vice Principal a copy of the US Constitution to take back with them.

Later that day we went down to see the sites of Philadelphia and had dinner in Chinatown. That evening our visitors were able to see a play at our Center for Performing and Fine Arts. We left for JFK in the middle of the night for the last leg of their journey to San Francisco. 

I would like to thank the following staff who contributed greatly to this exchange. Dr. Hanak, Eileen Bowers, Carolyn Fell, Patty Tully, Susan Giordani, Nona Neidert, David Juliano, and Anne DiSciullo. Without the help of the following host families this trip would have been impossible. Lori Kier, Ellen Baxter, Nona Niedert, Alice Lee, Lynn Parris, Marge Wilcox, Melissa Bolz, Helen Balmer, Karen Chamberlain, Amy Hofbauer and Anne DiSciullo. We look forward to improving on this trip next year. Our team of nine PALCS members will be reciprocating this visit March 25^th – April 8^th this year. I am sure we will enjoy the same hospitality that our community gave last week to our guests. 

"Go to the people. Learn from them. Live with them. Start with what they know. Build with what they have. The best of leaders when the job is done, when the task is accomplished, the people will say we have done it ourselves."

Lao Tzu