A rejected letter from Pennsylvania State Senator Seth Grove.

Flea circus

Limiting beliefs can truly hold you back from greatness. Many strategies break the problem down into smaller pieces. Then you can celebrate your small victories and build confidence.When you see yourself caught in a limiting belief just remember the flea circus. It would be silly to bang your head on a cellophane barrier. It also is wrong to hold onto limiting beliefs.

This post was originally posted on November 21st. At that time I thought it was from my State Senator Ted Erickson. I was mistaken. The letter came from State Senator Seth Grove's office. I have apologized to Senator Erickson because he had nothing to do with this response, however, the meaning of the post still is valid. Seth Grove or someone in his office should not be using intimidation techniques to respond to the citizens of their state.  The letter below was faxed to my school's public fax number. I still would be wiling to meet with Senator Grove to discuss the content of this post.

Sir,

Recently, I received a faxed response from you with a few grammar and spelling corrections. It appears that you were trying to reinforce a weakness in my writing ability to undermine the content of my letter.

You said nothing about the content of the letter, so I think I made you angry. This was not my intention. You are a senator, and I respect you but, would you have answered my students in the same way? When Senator Jay Costa responded to my letter he addressed the main idea of student to teacher ratios. He said that because our school’s money came from local districts with varied per capita reimbursements, then it would be extremely difficult to tie funding to ratios. Although I disagree with Mr. Costa, would it have been that hard to write to this point as well? Mr. Grove, my letter was an opinion, not an assignment in a class. I am a teacher and administrator of leadership electives in a cyber high school. I am the adviser for our active student government organization where our students learn civic leadership in practical ways. If you wrote back this kind of response to one of them, would your influence limit their belief system? Would they ever write a letter to their legislator again?

Sir, I admit that you are smarter and more influential than I, but the only way I can perceive this letter is as a personal attack. When you faxed the letter back to my school without a comment apart from your corrections about my mechanics, this attacked my reputation as an educator. Was this your intention? I would think this would have been better handled with a phone call or meeting. Would you like to meet?

Did the students fail or did we fail them?

Why do Cyber Schools have high turnover and lower achievement test scores? Cyber schools receive students who have chosen to leave the public education system because it has failed them. Cyber schools are a second choice school for many students who are bullied, have bad grades, or unacceptable behavior. In some cases cyber schools have been able to re-mediate students and send them back to traditional schools, kick them out because they are not the right fit to be independent learners, or keep the ones who embrace the flexibility and independence of learning online. We can continue to criticize online learning, or marvel at the 35,000 students who have adapted to this kind of learning. It’s easy to throw out vague statistics to prove a point. It would also be good to judge the improvement of cyber learners from year to year and school to school. The pioneering spirit of online learners will prevail because of the way technology levels the playing field for students in rural, urban, and even developing countries. Students who are from economically disadvantaged families now have the opportunity to catch up to the privileged.

Teacher to student ratios and cyber school

I am a parent of five children who has put his children through the K-12 process. My children were home educated in places like Indiana, Phoenixville and Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. When they started college I looked with them at their choices, and one of the first things we looked at was teacher to student ratio. In all cases the schools with the lower teacher to student ratio were worth more money, and had better reputations.

The Philadelphia School District is currently cutting teachers because this ratio is too low. While I understand the tax payers prospective on this, it seems like we are moving in the wrong direction. In the School District of Philadelphia a 6th through 12th grader should not experience more than a 33 to 1 student to teacher ratio in a class. In some cases this ratio is lower so they are laying off teachers.This same ratio is  higher in cyber school. SB 1085 is currently cutting the revenue of cyber schools by 5%. This cut is ironic because the student to teacher ratio in cyber school is growing. The question is; should it be shrinking?  It is not unusual at some cyber schools for teachers to have over 200 students. SB 1085 will provide a motivation to raise that ratio further instead of shrink it to more effective levels. On a cyber level of education or in traditional education, the lower the student to teacher ratio is, the more effective the education. Every parent knows this, but perhaps some people think that cyber schooling is different.

Cyber School is not different. In our learning platform we have an instant messenger that allows us to respond to our students quickly when they have questions. Just now I answered  five students who needed my help with an assignment or project they were working on. Massive Open Online Courses (M.O.O.C.S) are different. In some cases they have tens of thousands of students in a single class. They serve the opposite objective of public education. They are attempting to leave all students behind, and recommend the cream of the crop to perspective employers who are willing to pay handsomely for this information. Students at a younger age than those participating in MOOCS are not as independent in their learning styles. If we make MOOCS the online learning template for public education it would be a drastic mistake. In my opinion, public education is about raising the bottom and mentoring the top. When my students fail at something I am always there to encourage them to try another door to an opportunity or learning. Students can get very depressed when they are compared to the best and the brightest in the world. The global economy has opened up greater opportunities, but it also has also created stress points along the way. When there is a coach or mentor standing in the doorway we can help our students when they feel they have made a mistake. I always tell my students there is always another door that they can go through. In a MOOC this does not happen. It is all about promoting the top and then grabbing them for a specific need. Public education should consider employment needs from the students' instead of the employers' perspective.

Philadelphia school teachers are being cut because they do not have the students to fill the schools. Should cyber schools be cut because they have too many students for their teachers to manage? I would suggest that our legislators consider teacher to student ratio when considering funding cuts. If they will consider this, then the current SB 1085 does not make sense. Minimizing our attention to students by raising student ratios will give us a short term cash bump for a long term unemployment outlook. It is like what Joachim Posada calls "Eating the marshmallow," instead of waiting for the good and healthy food. In a world economy where our students are competing for jobs that do not exist yet, it is important to maximize attention to our students, and their ultimate economic outcomes which will pay for our future retirement.

We need more students to go on our DC and China trips. Click here to find out more information, and scroll down to the trips near the bottom of the page.

PALCS Cyber Charter School Short Film

Have you ever wondered why students choose a cyber education?
Please watch this brief film by 8th grader Sean Brown.

Professional Learning Network (PLN) for Cyber School?

I am discouraged today as I write this BLOG post. The wrongs of some of the more charismatic leaders in the cyber charter school movement have caused some legislators to question the value of cyber Education.These incidents all have one thing in common. A charismatic leader chose to take advantage of their position in way that brought public scrutiny. This public scrutiny is reaching a harmful point now that legislation pending could cut our school funding by as much as 20%. This post is about the teachers, parents and students who sacrificed, risked money and stability to achieve innovative teaching practices in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

  

I am a cyber teacher and administrator at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I started at the school in 2004. I had worked in the Philadelphia School District briefly, and was one of the first teachers hired at this school. I am grateful for the opportunity that Philadelphia and PA Leadership gave me to start my third career in education.  In my experience I have found all teachers to be mission minded. I am one of thousands of people who are working behind the scenes to provide a valuable alternative to students in cyber education.  Our 2500 students chose our school because of our unique blend of teacher inspired lessons, and independent learning. Many of these people would receive relatively low rankings on the charisma scale. However, they form a professional learning network that can change education. 

Technology is the great equalizer in education. Many students are receiving the equivalent of a preparatory school education when they choose alternative education models. Our University Scholars Program within PA Leadership Charter School prepared my son well for Drexel University. He is not struggling to keep up with his classmates, and is ahead of most of them. Many of our students benefit from the flexible assessment grading where they are able to work at their own pace. When we consider cutting education costs, we should also consider that we are discarding the capitol investment of technology before we have realized its benefits.  This is a bad business practice. 

Like most educators, cyber teachers have embraced the mission of education. In cyber education the parent and learner are in the driver seat. They have chosen an alternative form of education. The teachers, parents and students in cyber education are willing to take a risk for students to have better educational outcomes. They are the true unsung heroes of education.  When these unlikely heroes are cut from the system because of funding cuts, are we really stripping the sustainable forces of stability from the school?

One example of legislation pending to cut teachers is House Bill 618. This bill will cut pension funding for cyber schools. If this happens, then we will likely cut the funding of new employees pensions. This will likely create a dual system of pensions and another class of teachers. Most teachers will not like this. This kind of unrest can lead to the creation of teachers unions in cyber schools. If you have read any of my past posts you will know that this is not something I am in favor of. Unions will bring stability, but they will also slow innovation. In my opinion we need to increase innovation, and not slow it down. Our students are feeling the pressure of competing in a global market place, and it our duty to equip them with the best technology possible to help them. Cyber education is just one example of using technology in a way where we can give our students a competitive advantage.

Parent and student choice is at the center of the cyber school model. When we empower parents and students to choose, only then can we give feet to educational change. Parent and student choice should be the center of education reform. The professional learning network Of parents, teachers and students are in the best position to see the outcomes of the educational process. The world is changing rapidly around us. We need to move our students with the change. Maximizing parent and student choice is very much like the following story. A parent and their student is waiting patiently for their train to come on the station platform. The train arrives and the student notices that he has the wrong ticket. It is a local train instead of a express train. Fortunately, he still has time to rush over to the ticket window and exchange his ticket. If we were to put this story into today's educational system the student would miss his train. He would would have to call his guidance counselor, to change that ticket. He would miss the express career train, and perhaps an opportunity for a better educational choice, that could lead to better job. Cyber school teachers work with software learning programs that represent the cutting edge of education. They can connect students with more resources to keep up with the changing world. We are training our students for jobs that do not exist yet. We must empower students to make the choices that come at the speed of technology, or they may end up in the wrong job. Cyber School puts students back on track.

Pa House Bill 618

From: Jim Hanak, CEO, PA Leadership Charter School

Dear Parents and Supporters of Cyber Charter Schools,On Wednesday September 25, 2013, House Bill 618 passed the PA House of Representatives 133-62.  This bill cuts funding for the 15 PA Cyber Charter Schools by over 10% the first year and up to 20% on the out years.  It was sold as a “double dip” that cyber charter schools are receiving from the school districts.  This “double dip” is actually less than a ½ dip that, if “corrected” by HB 618 it would actually reverse the double dip in favor of the home school district. It was also presented as a “compromise” bill that contained items that cyber charter schools want.The biggest problem with this bill is that it does not begin to address the other inequities in the cyber charter school funding formula that already punishes cyber charter schools.  

All charter schools begin with only 70 cents on the dollar from the home sending school district.  Despite this, charter schools are held to higher standards than their traditional counterparts and cyber charter schools are graded with more stringent requirements than their equal brick and mortar counterpart.Some will point out that this bill (618) will hold cyber charter schools more “accountable.”  This argument was a diversion designed to draw attention away from the real purpose of the bill – to cut cyber charter funding.  Most of the so called “accountability” factors contained the bill have already been put in place in law and all cybers are already carefully complying with these accountability requirements.Our opponents will argue that this bill is a compromise and contains features that cyber charter school supports want.  

While this is true, the bill was written without any consultation with the cyber charter community and contains features (like a 10 year charter) that, while are nice, do not compare to the financial cuts that cybers must endure.  The opponents of charter schools estimate that it will cost cyber charter schools as much as $40 million!...the first year.This bill was supported by the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials and the PA State Education Association (PSEA – teacher’s union), two very powerful status quo educational lobby groups. All PA Cyber Charter Schools were united in opposition to the bill.  Thousands of e-mails, letters, phone calls and visits to State Legislators did not stop this bill.  It was supported by the Republican Majority Leader but opposed by the Republican Speaker of the House.  

To pass the bill, the Majority Leader had to provide promises to Democrats – something he was unwilling to do to pass the same bill last Spring.   The only thing this bill does is further cripple Cyber Charter Schools.  It cuts cyber schools’ funding dramatically but only saves local school districts .02% of their budget (two tenths of one percent).  It saves the State nothing.  It saves taxpayers nothing.  It simply transfers millions of dollars from students in cyber schools to students in their home school district. What will cyber charter schools do to adjust?  Those schools that are growing (most of them) will simply hold off raises for their teachers / staff or increase class sizes or purchase less education software or the like.  Those schools that are not growing will have to make layoffs, creating an environment like that of Philadelphia School District encouraging staff to look for more stable job opportunities. What will local school districts do with the additional two tenths of one percent income.  

I don’t know.  What I do know is that it is not the additional income that is driving the Teachers Union (PSEA) to promote this bill.  Rather it is the crippling effect on cyber charter schools. So, where does 618 go from here?  It must pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor in order to become law.  Now is the time to let your Senator know how you feel about this bill. Most state legislators have no strong feelings as to who should educate our children.  They will very likely cast their vote based on how strongly their voters feel about this issue.  We thank all of our PALCS families for letting their voice be heard on this issue.  

Dr. James HanakCEO, PA Leadership Charter SchoolView in: Mobile | Desktop©2012 Google

What is leadership?

Three very popular leaders from the past 150 years answer student's questions about leadership.