The truth about cyber charter schools

The truth about cyber charter schools

Cyber school on Snow Days

At traditional schools when there is a lot of snow the teachers and students take off work. According to the Washington Post the government loses $71,000,000 for each snow day that happens. In Cyber School when we get a snow day the students do not get off school, and the teachers continue to teach. There is no loss in productivity. The current climate change trend seems to be adding more snow days in the North East United States. This means we are likely to see more and more snow days. When teachers teach from home or students learn on their computers at home, snow days are just another school day.

When we add up the number of snow days already this year we can calculate quite a savings. For many schools there were a total of six snow days this year. This represents 4.26 billion dollars of savings in traditional schools. What could education do with 4.26 billion dollars of productivity? When the government shuts down there is no proven economic loss over the long term. When schools close there can be brain drain, and a lack of momentum. The loss of student achievement over the summer months is well documented. The start and stop of learning in the middle of a unit of study can also result in a learning deficit.

In addition to the learning lost there are also savings from snow days. As illustrated in the photo above there are no buses in cyber school on snow days. No buildings to heat, utilities to buy or building to clean.The traditional brick and mortar schools would do well to mimic cyber schools on snow days because it could more than pay for the money that is lost to cyber enrollment. 35,000 students receive $366 million in the state of Pennsylvania. What would we save by closing down schools on snow days? I would venture to guess that it may more than pay for the 35,000 student's tuition who have chosen to cyber school.

Since I have made this post in February of 2014 many districts have begun this practice. Should  Cyber Charter Schools  be resource schools for traditional schools for fund savings in the Pennsylvania Education System?

Defending cyber charter schools

 

Another View: Defending cyber charter schools

By Dr. James Hanak

Posted: 02/26/15, 7:57 PM EST

Dr. Hanak is a mentor, friend and colleague of mine at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. :)

For years, Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools have been criticized for under-performing on the state’s standardized tests (PSSAs). This is in part because cyber charter schools attract many students from struggling school districts that have failed to give these students a proper education.

So, this month, on their website, the PA Department of Education released the statewide SAT scores for 653 Pennsylvania high schools/charter high schools. Of the 189 charter schools in the state, three of the top six charter schools were cyber charter Schools. 

The top charter school was 21st Century Cyber Charter School in 63rd place with the next charter school placing at number 116! This happened even though there are only 14 cyber charter schools among the 189 statewide PA charter schools.

The most amazing part of this report is that all top eight charter schools accomplished their scores with 27 percent less money than their traditional counterparts!

 

So, what do cyber charter schools get as a reward?

Currently in Harrisburg, the House of Representatives is considering a bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Reese, (HB 530) that, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, would cut funding for cyber charter schools by more than 5 percent across the board and by as much as 8 percent for students from Philadelphia and as much as 15 percent from students from Chester.

The biggest problem with this bill is that it does not address the other inequities in the cyber charter school funding formula that punish the schools. All charter schools begin with only 75 cents on the dollar from the home sending school district. Along with this, charter schools are held to higher standards than traditional counterparts and cyber charter schools are graded with more stringent requirements than their equal brick-and-mortar counterparts.

The PA Association of School Business Officials, (PASBO.org) is the prime mover of this bill and has only one agenda. All the members of the PASBO board are top administrators in local school districts. They see students leaving their districts and taking tax dollars with them to the only charter schools that reach statewide – cyber charter schools. PASBO must do whatever it can to stop cyber charter schools from being successful. Forget the needs of the students. It is the needs of the budget that are paramount. 

Unfortunately, money talks and the little guy often gets crushed. Cyber schools were cut before because they were not making the grade. Now that they are successful, they most certainly must be cut. The education monopoly establishment must never allow a better innovative idea to catch hold. After all, it might force everyone else to rethink how they are delivering education. 

Cyber schools are utilizing tomorrow’s technology: iPads, video conferencing, multiple screens, touch screens, smart boards, interactive technology, educational gaming, avatars, MOODLE open source learning environments. Cyber schools can create virtual classrooms that pull students together from across the state and across cultural divides. Cyber schools provide state-of-the-art computers, a high-speed Internet and a full educational experience to all their students. A cyber school can provide a high school student any course he or she would ever want to take in a high school setting – including AP and honors courses and increasingly, university level courses.

This is why the education establishment must at all costs cut the funding to these already underfunded schools. The establishment fears the charter school movement, if left unfettered, will, in a couple of generations, take over as it already has in Washington, D.C. where now over 60 percent of the students attend a charter school.

If this bill passes, who are the winners? The well-paid administrators who won’t have to give up their perks and benefits. Who will lose? The thousands of students that are stuck in schools from which they cannot escape. Reported in “Chalk and Talk” ... written by Philadelphia public school teachers, in the Philadelphia Schools: 2005-2010 there were 19,752 assaults. During that same time there were zero assaults in all the cyber charter schools combined. Safe education with high SAT scores. Hard combo to beat.

Dr. James Hanak is CEO of the PA Leadership Charter School.

Cyber School PA, The right choice!

 

Dear Legislator, 

I have been a distance-learning educator for over ten years. During this time, I have seen many students who have been genuinely helped by this form of education. 

One thing that makes our learning platform different is access to quick responses from a teacher. Our students benefit most from this individual attention that we are able to reassure them with. They use the Open Source Moodle platform, and we communicate with many of them each day.  Our Moodle Platform is equipped with an instant messenger to help students at formative times when they begin to struggle. This access to a learning coach will be greatly diminished by a funding cut. 

I meet with students in groups every day in a multi-media classroom. My students have formed life long friendship with other students through this setting as well as looking to their teachers as mentors. I have been able to conduct these classroom sessions while in Panama, China and Quebec. The opportunity to tutor students in this setting will be greatly diminished. Teachers will have less time for synchronous instruction if funding is cut. 

Over time we get to know our students through their writing and responses in the classroom. We can access their group interaction, as well as their knowledge and skill in academics with the technological tools of multi-media classrooms, internal email, instant messaging and highly interactive lessons.  

If our students use distance education as a form of correspondence school, then they could have been doing this in the early 20^th century. While it is true that we could still develop a relationship with them through their writing, it is not a reason to spend this kind of money on learning though the Internet. There is nothing new about correspondence based learning. The Cyber Charter Schools of today use technology to rapidly reach students at critical times of learning. We can catch them at thresholds of learning to ease the transition from one concept to another. We can foster a mentoring relationship with them when we celebrate milestones of accomplishment together, and can correct or redirect them when they need it. Most importantly, we can prepare them for the 21^st century in a way that could have never been accomplished in the 1900’s. 

Our students are learning to reason with technological change. This is quite different from traditional education that clings to a process that is based upon rewarding compliant behavior. In a global world of change, someone needs to be testing new methods of learning that will eventually become mainstream. As other countries catch up with our standard of living, the process of preparation for the real world of work must change with it. 

Will we regret the cuts in this funding when other countries do a better job of preparing students to interact in a world where computers are the universal language? Pennsylvania will be rewarded for their leadership in connecting real world change with the skills necessary to face it. Our legislators in Pennsylvania should follow in the footsteps of our forefathers and do the right thing. Our Commonwealth has a stellar record of advocating for woman’s suffrage, homeschooling, equal rights, and family values when they were not popular. Over time our citizens will embrace the principles of educational choice and funding which follow the student instead of the system. Who is to say that this is not the next great revolution in education, and Pennsylvania is leading the way. 

For another point of view, please read this article. http://www.dailylocal.com/opinion/20150226/another-view-defending-cyber-charter-schools

Is H.B. 530 a Conflict of Interest?

The thrust of H.B. 530 that just passed in the PA. House of Representatives today seems to be turning authorization over to residential school districts or intermediate units. Is this a conflict of interest? Cyber Charter Schools enroll students across many school districts and intermediate units through election by the student. Students are choosing cyber charter schools because they want and need options of flexibility and safety. This bill would limit these choices by creating new regulations that would strangle innovation for the benefit of individual affluent school districts. There is a problem of unequal funding per student across The Commonwealth. Cyber Charter schools currently serve many economically disadvantaged students by providing them with more equitable funding for education services across school district lines. The wording in H.B. 530 effectively gives funding to the district when the student should be empowered with that choice. Charter schools of choice are in the best position to help that student utilize that money to learn. Should we increase the funding of the research and development of education now that they have begun to show results?

For another point of view, please read this article. http://www.dailylocal.com/opinion/20150226/another-view-defending-cyber-charter-schools
 

Cyber School Choice

Cyber schools are public charter schools that offer education to students Online. Students who received the bulk of their education online have varying reasons for making this choice. These reasons could justify the creation of an individualized education program (IEP) for each student. For example some students travel because of their passion for an extra curricular activity. Some students feel unsafe, or are bullied in the traditional setting. Some students just need extra time to work at their own pace. There are about as many reasons as there are students to choose an Online option for education. Today 15 of my students are traveling to Harrisburg to meet with legislators to tell their story to legislators. I hope legislators will open their doors and listen to these students.

Travel is one reason students choose cyber school. For example, one student, a gymnast, has a rigorous travel schedule that keeps her on the road 60% of the time. Six of my students just returned from China where they were able to log into lessons in Pennsylvania while traveling to the other side of the world. Another six of my students went to Panama earlier in the month. These students were able to complete service learning projects while they traveled and stay current on their lessons back home. Travel is one reason that students choose cyber education.

Unfortunately, many of our students who choose a cyber education option have been bullied in the past. Bullying is a growing problem in traditional schools. Cyber Bulling is also a problem, but in Cyber School students are taught to be responsible cyber citizens. In brick and mortar schools social media is avoided or ignored. Cyber education has provided a safe refuge from bullying for many of our students. Whether it is more familiar face to face intimidation or cyber bullying, most students engaged in online education do not find predatory behavior in this setting.

Flexibility is a key component for many of our students. Many of our students like to work at their own pace. With asynchronous lessons that have realistic deadlines; students can choose to schedule tasks that are more difficult over a longer period of time. This helps our students to budget tasks in a way where they can succeed. Mastery is a goal of modern education, and online learning is a process of learning that maximizes this goal. Schedules in traditional schools are not flexible. They do not accommodate snow days or differentiated instructions well. Cyber school does a good job accommodating differentiated instruction and even snow days. When the traditional schools close, cyber students can continue to work on asynchronous lessons.

In conclusion flexibility and safety are cornerstones of online learning. In addition not every cyber school is the same. There are large cyber charter schools and much smaller ones. I work for one of the smaller schools. A cut of 5-15% in the funding of our school will have a much bigger impact than the same cuts on a school five times larger. If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cuts funding for cyber schools, then they must realize that different schools that are providing a different innovative emphasis may be significantly affected by these cuts. Cyber charter schools are providing a flexible and safe alternative for many students in Pennsylvania. If funding is cut then the results may be unpredictable for different sized cyber schools across the state. The State's investment in cyber education is a commitment to the innovation necessary, to provide differentiation, flexibility and a safe education to the students who choose to pioneer this style of learning.

The latest threat on Cyber Schools.

I read an interesting article today on Cyber School in the State of Indiana. They have recently followed the lead of Pennsylvania and began to roll out internet based learning in their state. After I read the article I realized that all internet based learning is not equal.This cyber charter school was significantly underfunded at $5000 per student.

I am a teacher of Leadership electives at the Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I can see significant differences between our school and other state wide cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. Our lessons are different from the other cyber schools in the state. Our teachers have embraced the mission of pioneering a new education platform and have designed their own lessons. Many of our sister schools in the state have opted for a different system. K-12 and Commonwealth Connections have created a school based curriculum that can be transferred easily from school to school. This model works very well to recreate their learning in other schools; however, it does not follow what is happening using the best practices available. The best educational practices follow models where students can apply their learning to the real world. When I went to a traditional schools in the 1960’s and 70’s we had independent instructional approaches where students could work at their own pace, and it worked great for independent learners. It was called SRA. My wife, the visual learner excelled at this. She reached the ultimate color achievements while I was stuck at the lower level because my learning style was more social and auditory. “Hey at least I wasn’t aqua,” would be in the back of my mind. Many of the systems that are transferable follow this SRA independent instruction style. There are now off the shelf lessons that you can plug into online schools to get you up and running quickly, and less expensively. These independent instruction learning models are targeted to raise achievement test scores, but they generally do not teach how to think critically or solve problems. When I was in China on our annual international exchange the students complained to me that they memorize much information, but do not know how to apply it. Is this were our educational system is heading? The school that we exchange with had us complete a mock peace conference at the Chinese school. I saw much critical thinking and problem solving happening in the classroom that day. Students came up to me at the end of class and asked, “What is this new method of teaching called?" I told them we call it role play. 

The Charter school movement is being is being attacked by special interest groups right now. Charter schools are facing funding cuts by as much as 20%. If these funding cuts happen, then many innovative practices will be stripped from schools. The Charter School movement has its enemies. The School Board Association and Teacher’s Union of Pennsylvania feel threatened because they have little input into the way charter schools are governed. The proposed cuts will cause all charter schools to be reduced to the common denominator of independent instruction. The opponents of charter school education are calling the “per student” funding that is being transferred to charter schools an unfunded mandate. Is it an unfunded mandate, or is it the cost of innovating education? Everyone knows that we must compete on a global level.  This is driving change. Innovation is the process of change, and if we are going to have it, then we must fund it.

The latest challenge to our funding is coming in the form of a Special Education cut. I have included a letter from Representative Daniel Truitt about this problem. Dan has been a real hero in the fight for educational innovation on the state level, and I hope that every PA Legislator will read his note below.

This is the second day in a row (and at least the third time overall) that this organization has distributed bad data to legislators on this issue and I feel compelled to respond.

The $350M figure that they are calling “Charter Special Education Tuition” includes approximately $177M in regular education tuition.  So, the assertion that charter schools are getting a windfall of $200M per year is a lie, just like the assertion that we cut $1B from education is a lie.  We should all be offended by this organization and its representatives for attempting to mislead legislators who are tasked with making very important decisions that will affect the children of this commonwealth.

I have the spreadsheet that is the source of the data provided below and would be happy to provide it to anyone who is interested.  It shows that school districts paid charter schools $917,767,997.07 in non-special education tuition for 100,351 students (student count from a different source).  That’s an average of $9,146.00 per student (much less than school districts spend on their own students).  The spreadsheet also shows that school districts paid charter schools $350,562,878.63 in special education tuition for 19,114 special education students.  That’s an average of $18,341.00 per special education student to cover their regular education expenses AND their special education expenses.

So, the $350M figure below includes only $9,195.00 per student to cover special education expenses.  PASBO distributed a letter on April 29th which stated that charter schools” spent—on average—only $8,500 per student on special education instructional costs”.

Given that PASBO has overstated the revenue that charter schools receive, I would not be surprised if they also understated the costs and I’m looking into the cost-side numbers as well.

Please note that the end result of HB-2138/SB-1316 would be that the “average” charter school would receive only $4,664.46 (51% of $9,146.00) to cover the $8,500.00 expense mentioned above.

The bottom line is that this is a complex mathematical issue.  While the underlying concept behind HB-2138/SB-1316 (3-tiered funding formula) makes sense for the distribution of state funds to school districts, that entire portion of the bills is neutralized by hold harmless provisions that really make these bills nothing more than charter school funding bills.  Unfortunately, the charter school section of the bills is deeply flawed and needs extensive rework.

I realize that this subject is about as fun as watching paint dry, but, I would be happy to sit down with anyone who is interested and go over the math and the spreadsheets.

Remember, we are talking about special education students here.  Getting this wrong could easily lead to lawsuits and a PR nightmare.  Of course, the fact that we’ll be screwing 19,114 special education students should be enough of a reason to go back and get it right.

Regards,


Dan Truit