Monday, December 23, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
From Americans for Tax Reform
Pennsylvania Senate Bill Puts School Choice at Risk!
S.B. 1085 unfairly targets cyber schools
School choice is being threatened again and this time the target is over 40,000 Pennsylvanian children. The Pennsylvania State Senate has introduced a bill, S.B. 1085, that would cut 5% of the funding for public cyber charter schools and reassign it to traditional brick-and-morter public schools.
Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania have revolutionized the education system in Pennsylvania. Taking money from schools where students attend and arbitrarily giving it to public schools where they do not makes little sense. As a result, many families are asking for the Pennsylvania State Senators to hold off on a vote for reallocating the funding until a study on how money is spent in public cyber schools is done.
PA Families for Public Cyber Schools has this to say:
“Haste makes waste: This study will help inform everyone involved in the debate, including parents. It would be irresponsible to take preliminary action before benefiting from the findings of the proposed study.”
The cyber schools amount to roughly 1% of the education budget for Pennsylvania. When a student decides to go to a cyber charter school, those students receive only 81% of the funding that they were once getting in a public school setting. Public schools are given funding preferences, despite parental choice and lack of evidence indicating money for cyber charter schools is mispent. It has been estimated that the 5% reduction would be equal to one- third of cyber teachers' salaries. The cut limits the accessibility of cyber charter schools for families across the state and puts currently enrolled students at risk.
The bill does have some positives. It fixes a “pension double dip” for cyber schools. The bill also institutes measures of accountability and oversight that make cyber schools more transparent fiscally. It also gives universities more leeway in authorizing new charter schools, weakening school districts authority to flatten their competition, creating more equality.
Monday, December 16, 2013
A rejected letter from Pennsylvania State Senator Seth Grove.
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.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Did the students fail or did we fail them?
Monday, November 11, 2013
Teacher to student ratios and cyber school
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.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
PALCS Cyber Charter School Short Film
Please watch this brief film by 8th grader Sean Brown.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Professional Learning Network (PLN) for Cyber School?
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.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
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
Monday, July 29, 2013
What is leadership?
Monday, June 24, 2013
Putting things in perspective
Monday, June 17, 2013
Virtual Schools are schools of the future.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Pension funding double dip correction on cyber schools may be done incorrectly. #edchat,@PALCS
The current solution in PA HB 618 would cut cyber school funding by at least 25%.
Write your representative now. http://savemycharterschool.com/take-action/ They are expected to vote on PA HB 618 on Monday. This bill will cut cyber school funding. Another possibility is that since pensions will need to be cut for new employees, then their will be a greater chance for unions to organize based on unequal pension plans. School unions are forces for stability, and will decrease innovation in cyber schools.
Joe Emrick the sponsor of HB 618 may have a blind spot here. I know that he is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses which would be against the future unionization of cyber charter schools. A vote for HB 618 is like a vote to unionize cyber charter schools.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Falls & Sugar Shack on the last Day!
On the last day we visited the Falls at Montmorency. It is an amazing site. The falls are actually higher than Niagra Falls. Unlike Niagra Falls, there is a foot bridge that allows you to walk over the falls.
Quebec is a distinctly Catholic country. We visited a famous cathedral of Saint Anne. We also drove to the Island of Orleans and drove to the tip of the island where we climbed an overlook.
Our dinner was very special. We visited a sugar shack where they manufacture maple syrup. We had maple syrup on all of our food, and finished the night with some line dancing.
What fun!
Mr. P.