Review of “Nice White Parents” 

Real estate and American values in conflict. 

It is summer. The time that History and English teachers get to dream. I have read some excellent books and listened to some great podcasts while painting bedrooms and completing projects for the love of my life. I heard an advertisement for "Nice White Parents" on the tail end of the NPR "Serial" podcast. (Great Podcast!)  I was instantly intrigued because I have been in education for 17 years and started in the School District of Philadelphia where most of my students were Black and Latino. At first glimpse, it was difficult not to write off the podcast by NPR Chana Joffe-Walt as provincial. The experiences described were about Brooklyn in NYC. I teach in Pennsylvania where home rule in school districts governs and funds everything. The pod cast does not transfer well to my experience in Pennsylvania. Lydia Kulina does a great job of reviewing this in the Medium Blog. Funding should follow the student, and not local real-estate values. This is currently how cyber charter schools are funded. No teacher should be teaching over crowed classrooms in 90 degree heat. However, Joffe-Walt with her thesis of financially empowered white majorities and minorities steer changes in education is valid for the following reasons. 

1. White flight from the city to the suburbs has increased segregation in schools. 

2. Administrators in the suburbs attempt to increase diversity with limited financial motivation and success. 

3. Gentrification creates conflict and upheaval in traditional black and immigrant communities on the fringe. 

These are all linked by economic factors that are tied to majority European dominance. When the immigrants settled this country, they valued both liberty and equality. In my review of Joffe-Walt's contributions, she describes racism, but does not dig deeply enough into the values of a dominant European majority. 

The first settlers valued individual liberties. Jonathon Winthrop believed that they were creating a city on a hill that would be a beacon to reform Europe from a state religion without individual choice. White flight from the city to the suburbs is directly related to this value. When it comes to education, people are moving to the suburbs to improve the perceived safety and opportunities for their children. Black parents also look to improve their opportunities. Booker T. Washington created the Tuskegee Institute to raise up dis-empowered blacks with desirable skills. People compare themselves to others and sacrifice to get something better. This creates a direct conflict with equal educational opportunities. Federal funding like the Race to the Top has done little to change these unequal education opportunities. Will more centralized funding that removes parental choice work? While I believe state funding following the student is a good idea, Title I programs, and states that have funding that follows the student (New York) have shown that change will not happen until there is a significant shift in American values. 

Administrators in Pennsylvania are charged with increasing diversity as an unfunded mandate. They come up with strategies that usually involve delegating this mandate to a staff person or parent. In the first podcast of "Nice White Parents," it does a great job of showing how a desperate principal delegates the problem of losing her school because of lower enrollment by working with a parent to infuse white kids into a traditional Black and Latino school. In this episode, they discuss the "bliss point," which is the percentage of white kids necessary for parents to want to place their kids in this school located on the fringe of gentrification. The bliss point is 26%. The school shortage in a gentrified community like Cobble Hill Brooklyn can not be compared to many school districts in America, but the idea that principals look to delegate unfunded mandates is sound. Changing school funding formulas will lead to greater equality in education especially in states like Pennsylvania where local funding rules. However, it negates the sacrifice that parents made to place their children into a school with safety and opportunity. Joffe-Walt's premise seems to be that unless white parents sacrifice and send their kids to schools on the fringe of their comfort, change will not happen. 

The balance of liberty and equality will always be in conflict. In my opinion, this is a function of social class instead of race. This is because the choices parents make to set their children apart will always exist regardless of the funding formula. If parents choose to sacrifice to send their kids to fringe schools, then they need motivation to do so. The charter school movement is one way that parents are choosing to experiment with education. Making these sacrificial choices is necessary to integrate schools and increase equality in education. Mandating these choices is another strategy that could backfire. When parents are forced to send their kids to schools that are not their choice, then human nature and American values will continue to search for ways to distinguish their children from others. In one of the podcasts, white students take over an entire floor which upsets peace and learning at the school. This is not the preferred outcome of this change. Schools and school systems need to take into consideration American values when making policy changes. Severe structural change may lead to greater equity in education, but if this happens at the expense of learning achievement, then what have we accomplished? 

As the COVID pandemic has revealed, Online Learning is an option that uses a technological solution providing all parents with options, opportunities, and safety. When a student learns online, they can easily be provided with similar resources and environment. Schools can experiment with blended models where teachers use a flipped classroom approach to encourage collaboration and teamwork onsite two to three days per week. The program I currently teach in uses this model. In some cases we are forced to operate 100% virtually because our students are too far apart to meet together. This allows us to transcend social class and mix diverse economic classes together. This diversity enriches our program while it increases equity in education. It is my hope that our virtual program will expand to include more team building and face-to-face collaboration opportunities. This type of program will become more of a possibility as the pandemic opens up new ways for parents to work from home. When this cultural change becomes the norm, then it will not be unusual for parents to be interrupted in the midst of business meetings. Parents will also be empowered to look more closely at their children's education. All of this involves sacrifice, but this is the kind of sacrifice that American values will embrace. 

The latest attack on Cyber Charter Schools (Divide and conquer)

  I am a teacher at a cyber school in Pennsylvania. For the past three years I have had the privilege of working in a blended learning environment. In these classes we meet face-to-face with middle school students for half the week and high school students for the other half. I teach a Civilizations course to the middle school and AP US History to the high school. The other half of the time the students are working independently in our Canvas learning platform.

In the past cyber charter schools have been been threatened with funding cuts by attempting to divide charter schools from cyber charter school funding. Recently our blended programs have been threatened by funding cuts from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Education. This is because the students in them are not perceived as receiving a "significant portion" of their instruction electronically. The teachers at our blended programs utilize the electronic instruction during our classroom sessions as much as 30% of the time. This brings the total electronic instruction to 80% which most people would agree is a "significant portion" of the learning happening at our blended program. These blended programs have been in operation for 14 years. The significant portion of learning online has only recently been called into question.

The Pennsylvania School Board and Administrators Association (PASBA & PASBO) believes that the funding of students should not have shifted from their local school districts to state-wide cyber schools. The cyber charter school movement sees this differently. We see it as funding following the student's choice.  Over the past 15 years we have won the argument that funding should follow the student. However, the latest tactic is to divide and conquer based upon blended programs within cyber schools not delivering a "significant portion" of instruction electronically. I already made the case that this is not true; however, it does not deter organizations like PASBO, and the PSBA from trying different tactics to protect their turf.

The loss of blended programs would deal a blow to innovation in education. Combining cyber education with onsite instruction is how college campuses are currently instructing their students. In some cases colleges campuses are also offering instruction 100% cyber. Traditional schools are also using electronic instruction with greater frequency. The cyber charter schools have been driven this innovation and have become the testing grounds for incorporating technological change into the traditional classroom. Moodle, Canvas, Google Classroom, PLATO, KAHOOT, Quizlet Live, Nearpod, Flipgrid, PADLET, and ARC videos are all good examples of this. There are many other programs that have come and gone, replaced by newer technology. There is danger in removing innovation that traditional schools may not replace outdated technology with newer forms because there will be no stimulus for change.

Our students in blended programs use many of the tools mentioned above while in the onsite classroom to collaborate and learn team building in a synchronous learning environment. 100% cyber charter schools have a facial feedback and emotional response deficit when students are learning completely asynchronously.  Tools are still being developed to incorporate facial feedback and emotional response in classroom small group projects and discussion. While tools like Zoom with breakout rooms and ARC videos with comments have come a long way to fill this gap, many students choose to hide their faces in these settings or remain anonymous. This can be an advantage when relating to their peers, but it can pose a real challenge to teachers attempting to formatively access student learning.

Blended education offers a great compromise of both worlds. To divide and conquer by removing the most innovative of educational programs is a loss, and not a gain. Organizations that criticize this style of learning need to go beyond protecting their turf and consider the long term impact on education that the removal of these innovative programs will produce. A example of this may be refusing to use ARC video because Youtube will suffice. Youtube may be easier, but it does not protect against the cyber threats of predators and bullying that is now a part of the online world. Today's students deserve to have access to the innovations that will make them competitive in today's global society, while being protected from its dangers. Dividing and conquering cyber schools and blended programs is like settling for a lack of change. You may gain some stability, but students are the ultimate losers when they are not prepared to learn 21st century work skills.

Modify PA HB 97 & Senate Bill 766 (An Open Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate)

Modify HB 97 & Senate Bill 766

The current Senate Bill 766 sponsored by Senator Argall and HB 97 by Representative Reese need some adjustments. Here is the core of the Senate bill. A task force will be appointed to determine minimum standards of academic achievement for students of cyber charter schools. Students who are determined as having failing grades will be removed from the cyber charter school system. Here is an excerpt from the bill.

(4) annually conduct an assessment of the student's achievement to determine whether the level of achievement satisfies the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A to continue enrollment in the cyber charter school. (2) A student who fails, after being assessed in accordance with section 1743-A(e)(4), to satisfy the minimum achievement requirements established by the task force under section 1704-A shall withdraw from the cyber charter school at the end of the semester in which the assessment occurs and may not re-enroll in the cyber charter school or enroll in another cyber charter school unless the student satisfies the minimum achievement requirements at least one school year thereafter.

Here are some adjustments that I would recommend.

Stanford Study: 

The Stanford study has stimulated the desire to hold cyber charter schools accountable due to inadequate student achievement. While I applaud the concern for failing students in the cyber charter setting, the cyber charter school movement will not benefit from a one-size-fits-all policy. Some cyber schools are doing a better job of remediating student achievement and should be differentiated by the task force.

The Need for Differentiation:

The cyber charter schools are using different platforms and pedagogy to deliver instruction. In addition to differences in instructional platforms, there are also synchronous, asynchronous and blended learning models that are being beta tested. These innovations all have an implementation timeline for effectiveness. Many of these implementations are new. Cyber education changes as technology advances to deliver the best possible individual learning experience. A one-size-fits-all funding formula will punish innovation and reward the status quo. The loser in this formula is technological innovation which continues to change and increase in the proving grounds of cyber education.

Proving Ground or Dumping Ground

Cyber charter schools have become the dumping grounds for students seeking a second chance for success. There are legitimate reasons that many students choose a cyber educational setting. I call them the four B's. 

1. Bullying is a common reason students leave brick and mortar schools because they gain an individual setting apart from bullies. 
2. Bad or divergent behavior also provides a valid reason to minimize student interaction. Antisocial behaviors on the spectrum of autism can ostracize students causing them to withdraw. Cyber school provides students with a way to ease into a social setting with instant messages, multi-media classrooms, and field trips. 
3. Bad grades is the third reason for students leaving the traditional setting. Brick and mortar schools lose students because parents choose to send their children somewhere else. Many of these students suffer with poor grades and are looking for a different fresh start. Cyber schools provide a different alternative that provides individual instruction which allows for the possibility of success.
4. Breaking Boundaries is a different reason students choose cyber education. They embrace technological change to allow the time to reach other goals within their lives. They are leaders. They are also single mothers, gifted students, musicians, athletes, politically active, and young entrepreneurs.

Cyber charter schools are likely to have poorer graduation rates for the first three reasons, and traditional schools graduation rates should go up. Using student drop out averages across all schools to access effectiveness punishes cyber charter schools for accepting these students. 

Accountability:

The Task Force should take the average failing scores of students in the top cyber charter school when developing standards to determine "minimum achievement". This should be written into the bill to direct the task force to determine a benchmark. This will promote innovation without punishing systemic achievement.

Relationships:

The student teacher relationship is a foundation marker for student achievement. Students will never care how much you know until they know how much you care. The most at risk students are the students most deserving of a mentor relationship with their teacher. As a teacher of cyber charter students for fourteen years I have had the distinct privilege of making life long relationships with many of my students. As they have graduated and become Linkedin, Facebook and Instagram connections I have watched them succeed and flounder. The students who I have had the strongest relationship with seem to have found their way better in the world of work and family. 

Conclusion:

One size does not fit all in education or in cyber charter education. In my educational experiences over the past 14 years I have seen the need for greater differentiation in education. Technology provides a path to this. I do however understand the need for accountability. I welcome it when it comes with measures that reward innovation while punishing the lack of student achievement. 

"Whatever Sprinkles your Donut" and Tap the break lights on change.

I am the adviser for our Student Government Organization. Recently, our students organized a fundraiser to sell wrist bands to students and members of our cyber community of students. They gathered imprint ideas for the bracelets, and "Whatever Sprinkles your Donut" (Purposely grammatically incorrect) came up the winner. As I began to think about this trite saying it struck me that it reflects our current political environment. I recently watched a video from Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist, and author of, The World is Flat". In this video he discussed globalism and its resulting acceleration of change. It was his premise that the election of Donald Trump was a response to that change. He felt that the consequences of this election could be very serious even leading to nuclear war. I am more of an optimist. Although I agree that there could be serious consequences for choosing a path of stagnation versus change, I feel that the current election is just a tap on the brakes as people feel threatened by too much change.

The choice by my students of "whatever sprinkles your donut" is a subconscious reaction to the stress my students are currently experiencing. They are living and studying in a global world where the jobs that they will be preparing for will be gone by the time that they graduate. My advice to my students is to embrace technology. Our students are currently learning in a cyber blended model of education. We have students who have formed life long relationships from all over the Commonwealth because of cyber learning. When students are considering the next step after high school they should also consider how technology interacts with that field. Technology is moving at a rapid pace, and embracing it in the field of their choice will guarantee their success after high school.

Our students in Student Government have written a legislative bill this year. The have formed a committee called The Student Legislative Initiative (SLIC). Four years ago. our students got the idea for the bill by interviewing former state Senator Lloyd Smucker. He felt that many students were not receiving the skills necessary to be successful after high school. Our students have interacted with a computer program that aligns several inventories with thier interest, skills and job or scholarship availability into an electronic portfolio. Since we originally wrote this bill several other legislators ie Dan Tuitt, Scott Wagner, Ryan Aument and Andy Dinniman,  and their staffs have helped us. In addition many of my students have graduated and are still involved in the process. You can read the bill here. This bill is designed to ease the transition from high school into the world of work by assigning every student in the Commonwealth with an electronic portfolio, that is interactive with their teacher. It is a technological solution to a traditional guidance problem.

I am currently teaching US History. In my opinion, our country had worse presidents than Donald Trump. The Warren Harding and Grant presidencies were filled with corruption and led to The Great Depression and flawed reconstruction. While Donald Trump's presidency may have a scandal similar to Nixon's Watergate, Clinton's Lewinsky or Reagan's Iran Contra he may also accomplish fair trade with China, or paid parental leave. The point here is that Trump with a more parliamentary congress may be able to end the grid lock and bring back governance to Washington. In the meantime, there may be a scandal or two, but if progressive reforms can ease the transition of the pace of change, then our students will benefit. What makes Trump an interesting politician is that he has shown signs of compromising with conservative goals in the interest of establishing pragmatic reform. In the primary season when he campaigned against Hillary Clinton, he would frequently poise Bernie Sanders against her by taking the Bernie's side. For example, Trump would talk about how unfair competition was robbing Americans of jobs, and he used similar rhetoric about Sanders in his campaign. Both Sanders and Trump were populist candidates who veered from traditional party rhetoric for pragmatic progressive reform. The Republican Party was able to realign to these populist reforms because Trump was running unopposed.

In conclusion, the pace of change has been dramatic in recent years. Our students at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School are in a unique position to embrace technological change because they learn in a cyber and asynchronous setting. Students like Vinh Li, Josh Marzak, Ben Byler, and Hannah Nguyen have worked on our government bill project before and after graduation. They have gathered data from school districts, vendors, legislators, business and executives in education. They have faced the strain of change by embracing technology. "Whatever Sprinkles Your Donut" is a mantra that may relieve the stress that many young people feel. Change is happening too rapidly and is complicating our lives. The temptation is to give in and take the easy path. Students want to learn the skills necessary to acquire a job like our parents have. The jobs that our parents have may still be around whenever students graduate, however technology will have changed them into a description using more technological skills. If students acquire those skills they will be positioned to take change into the next generation and beyond. So go ahead and tap the breaks to slow down, "Whatever Sprinkles your Donut". I have no doubt we will catch up and even pass the rest of pack with good old Yankee ingenuity.

A Tribute to Dan Truitt A Pennsylvania Legislator in West Chester

Dan Truitt was not re-elected to his position representing the people of the 156th District in Pennsylvania this year. As a stalwart supporter of educational choice during his tenure as a State Representative, Dan fought hard to protect the funding of charter and cyber charter schools. It is not surprising to learn that he volunteered to serve on the education committee.

Dan was always happy to provide students with learning opportunities as he went about his legislative responsibilities. He spoke at our virtual town hall meetings and welcomed students to his office as well as to the House floor.  Our Student Government Organization was able to work closely with his office to develop a guidance bill to provide the next step after high school called The Stepping Into Careers Act. His wisdom and mentorship will be sorely missed in this project, but he has left a legacy of student involvement in legislative affairs.

While Dan is a strong believer in educational innovation, he is not just an advocate. His two gifted sons have attended the University Scholars' Program at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. This is an out-of-the-box educational program blends virtual and experiential learning. He and his family are helping to pioneer a new way of learning that combines virtual education with real life and classroom experiences. PA Leadership Charter School and its many programs wish him success as he takes his next step on his career journey.

If other legislators read this post, please consider continuing Dan's great work of inclusive representation, innovation, and optimism in education.

Cyber School and Online learning! (Stop PA HB 530)

Jamie Santora & The PA House of Representatives,

It is my understanding that House Bill 530 may be reconsidered this legislative session. As you know, Cyber Charter Schools already operate with approximately 75-80% of the money that the home school district receives for that same student.  Here is some information for you to consider about this bill:

·        Cyber Charter schools cannot sustain any cut to tuition funding to cyber charter schools as required in HB 530.

·        I support the provision in HB 530 for the creation of a bipartisan Commission that will have the opportunity to take an independent review of the actual costs of funding cyber education and recommend a tuition formula for charters and cyber charters.

·        I support the transparency & accountability recommendations in HB 530.

I commend the legislature for their commitment to reforming charter law, addressing accountability, operational efficiency, and financial stewardship for all charter schools. However, cutting cyber charter school funding now when more and more universities are developing Online learning platforms will not prepare our students to be on the cutting edge of learning. There is a learning gap when students transition from one platform of learning to another. Pennsylvania and the other states cannot afford this time loss due to transition as our students compete for jobs in a global economy. Recently, the State Universities Teacher Union went on strike. They were concerned about benefit reductions and pay increases, but they were also concerned about Online learning, and how this new platform will change the way they teach. Online learning is coming and there is no way to stop it. Pennsylvania has taken a leadership position in this area, and should not back off when the gap between high school and college is close to being bridged. The price of leadership is often uncomfortable change, and if funding is cut, the outcome may be reflected in our students paying the price with lower paying jobs.

Respectfully,

Pat Parris

2016 Welcome Back to School PA Leadership (PALCS) (USP)

Dear Reader,

I have been a distance-learning educator for over thirteen years. During this time, I have seen many students who have been genuinely helped by this form of education. I want to thank the legislators and Governor in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth for not cutting Charter or Cyber Charter School funding this year. I especially want to thank Representative Dan Truitt and my own representative Jamie Santora. In this brief thank you I will attempt to explain why last years action, (or inaction) was important. 

One thing that makes our learning platforms 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 an Open Source Canvas platform, and we communicate with many of them each day.  Our Canvas 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 20th 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 21st 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